Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Lone Parents

Ms Dari Taylor: How many lone parents have obtained jobs through the new deal for lone parents. [129319]

Mr. Ben Chapman: How many lone parents have used the new deal to date. [129330]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Since the start of the new deal for lone parents, 154, 731 lone parents have taken part. Of those, 16, 294 have entered education or training and 54, 241 have obtained jobs—more than one in three of those participating.

Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which says that the new deal has made the employment market very much more

efficient because it has actually trained hundreds of thousands of young people? It also states that the new deal is value for money. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the belief that the new deal could be extended with flexible use of the benefits system? Will he also refute the comment from the Opposition that the new deal is an extravagant waste of money? It most certainly is not.

Mr. Darling: The fact that the new deal for lone parents has seen into work nearly one in three of those participating seems to me to speak for itself. It is also worth bearing in mind that in 1979, there were 300, 000 lone parents on income support. By 1997, that number had grown to more than 1 million. Many of those people had been out of work for a long time, and leaving it to the market to do nothing would have meant that they—and their children, many of whom live in poverty—would not have been helped. My hon. Friend is right to say that the report produced last week by the national institute has pointed to the fact that all the new deals are changing the culture in this country. By providing help, we are ensuring that work pays and, as a result, we have more than 1 million people more in employment and we are beginning to reduce child poverty—something that the Opposition would never do anything about.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new deal was abolished, as suggested by the Opposition, those thousands of lone parents who have been helped into training or work would find themselves without that help in the future and would, in effect, be abandoned? Is not that the key difference between the parties?

Mr. Darling: The big difference is that we recognise that if we are to get people who have been out of work for many years back into work, extra help is necessary. That means not just the new deal, which the Conservatives would abolish, but the working families tax credit, which they would also abolish. Much of the training and education that is also essential to getting people back to


work would be cut, because the Conservatives are now pledged to finding £16 billion of cuts in public expenditure. That is a false economy which would result in more people being out of work, bigger benefit bills, lower tax receipts and a return to the days of the 1980s and 1990s when a whole generation of people and their children were written off.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge the success that the new deal for lone parents has been, although there is a danger that Ministers claim too much for it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only specific help available to lone parents is access to a personal adviser? As he knows, the Government plan to extend personal advisers to everyone, when the working age agency comes into being. Will the Secretary of State look again at what additional help can be provided—for example, in terms of subsidised employment or access to full-time education—for lone parents?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not only the new deal, but the tax and benefit reforms we have made—including the WFTC and help with child care, which never existed in the past and would be chopped as a result of what the Conservatives propose—which have made a big difference to individuals. The fundamental difference, when one considers all the measures that the Government have introduced, is that the culture has changed. We believe that people have a right to benefit when they are out of work, but that they also have a clear responsibility to help themselves. They also have a right to expect that the Government will help them to get back into work. All our measures would be at risk if the Conservatives were ever to get back, and the result would be more unemployment and more child poverty. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, we will continue to look at ways in which we can improve all the new deals and other measures to get people into work.

Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that back in March, the target group for the new deal was lone parents with a child over five, that in May, that became a lone parent with a child over three and that in June, the target became all lone parents on income support? The Government have redefined the target group to include any lone parent who calls at a jobcentre looking for work. In fact, every time he misses the target, the Secretary of State just makes it bigger so that it is easier to hit.
The Government have changed the target group so often that they claim credit for every lone parent who ever gets a job. Is not it typical of the Government that, when they are failing, they fiddle the figures? Should not the Secretary of State admit that, as all the evidence shows, the new deal for lone parents is an expensive failure?

Mr. Darling: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is trying to be too clever by half. The new deal has been a success, as independent evaluation has shown. In the pilot projects, nearly one in three participants went into work at an average cost of £1, 300. That shows that the project is well worth the cost.
The Tories were in power for 18 years, and the hon. Gentleman was a Minister for some of that time. What he cannot face up to is the fact that at the end of their time in

office, more than 1 million lone parents were on income support. They were out of work and written off. By contrast, this Government have introduced measures to ensure that lone parents get into work. Moreover, nearly 50 per cent. of children living in poverty are the children of lone parents. It is crucial that we get those children out of poverty. That makes good social sense, and good economic sense. No doubt that is why the Conservatives cannot see the sense of it.

Mr. Andrew Miller: What plans he has to help lone parents to obtain the training they need to return to work. [129320]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): New deal for lone parents advisers currently help lone parents into work-related training courses and pay for child care during attendance at the course. So far, the scheme has helped 16, 000 lone parents to take up training or education. Personal advisers can also offer back-to-work training through Employment Service programmes. From April 2001, we will be introducing a £15 per week training premium for lone parents taking up training through the new deal.

Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware of the phenomenal success of the Cheshire Oaks and Coliseum estates in my constituency, which is close to her own. The Benefits Agency and the jobcentre have worked with the local authority and local employers to help create jobs and to target them on people from the most impoverished part of my constituency. Does she believe that the announcement that she has just made will further assist women who are finding it difficult to bridge the skills gap, as many modern employers require?

Angela Eagle: We are doing our best, by means of other refinements to the new deal, to make work pay for lone parents, many of whom have been out of the labour market for a long time. Getting lone parents into work ensures that their children do not grow up with nothing to look forward to but a lifetime on benefit. The help with training that we are offering lone parents is part of the support that they need to get back into work.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that, at the current rate, the new deal for lone parents will take 26 years to get the newly defined target group back into work?

Angela Eagle: It took 20 years to get 1 million lone parents existing on benefits. What is the Tory legacy? Between 1992 and 1997, there was a 14 per cent. increase in the number of lone parents on income support, compared with a 10 per cent. decrease between 1997 and today. A total of 100, 000 lone parents have got off benefit and gone back into work. We aim to continue to help those who still have not managed to make the transition—and we will do so.

Disabled Workers

Mr. David Borrow: What steps he is taking to help people who become disabled while in work to keep their jobs. [129321]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Under the new deal for disabled people, a number of innovative schemes are already testing ways in which both employees and employers can be helped when a person becomes ill or disabled in work. We have also announced plans for job retention and rehabilitation pilots, beginning from next year, which will test the effectiveness of early work-focused employment and health strategies.

Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer, but may I emphasise the need for close monitoring of the way in which Government Departments and employers work together? A disabled constituent of mine was offered a job last summer, but it has taken the relevant Government Departments and the employer until this month to get their act together and ensure that the proper adaptations for a disabled worker were in place. That case may be an exception, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the pilot schemes are monitored closely to ensure better co-ordination in the future?

Mr. Bayley: May I start by paying tribute to the close way in which my hon. Friend works with disability bodies in his constituency? I was there just last week at a meeting that he organised with voluntary bodies representing the disabled.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the access to work provisions made by the Department for Education and Employment work smoothly and efficiently in the vast majority of cases. I am concerned to hear his comments about this particular case, and I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment will look at it. We will, of course, be monitoring our pilot studies very closely.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Every penny lost through fraud means that less money goes to the genuinely disabled. What is the total amount lost in fraud on the disability living allowance? I ask this question because, according to the recent article in The Economist, the amount is now so large that the Government have stopped calculating it. Indeed, the article calculates that fraud amounts to between £3 billion and £7 billion. There are entire sleeper rings working in the Minister's Department who are garnering information, before they go out to work, to commit fraud. Is this a new form of welfare to work?

Mr. Bayley: The Government are doing things to target disability benefits on those who merit them. We are, as a result, tightening the gateways. However, in relation to rehabilitation pilots, the hon. Gentleman needs to focus on the fact that every week, 3,000 people leave long-term sickness benefits and go on to incapacity benefits. Some 90 per cent. of them remain on incapacity benefits for life, although most would like to get back into work. That is what we are focusing on. We are avoiding the need for people to go on to incapacity benefits.

Ms Helen Southworth: Along with many of my constituents, I welcome the rehabilitation pilots which will be started next year. I think that they will be very beneficial. As people in employment who become disabled are likely to need considerable health intervention and treatment, will my hon. Friend make sure that

the Department of Health is working closely with the Department of Social Security to facilitate people retaining employment and retaining dignity?

Mr. Bayley: The rehabilitation and retention pilots are a three-way collaboration between the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. They can work only if there is joined-up government between those three Departments. That is how they were conceived, that is how they will work and that is why we believe that we will achieve real results for disabled people.

Mr. Tim Boswell: As disability issues should not necessarily be a matter for political controversy, I am sure that the Minister will be as concerned as I am that 3,000 people a week leave the work force for permanent benefit and that the Post Office estimates that a single medical retirement can average some £80,000 of cost to the employer. In addition, there is the evidence of the report last week that ill-health retirement is concentrated in, although not exclusive to, the public sector. Will the Minister therefore bear in mind the experience of the disability pilots, particularly the St. Loyes transformation project in Exeter, which I know that he has visited, and make sure that these roll forward to adoption as soon as is practically possible? In addition, will he ensure that all those involved in providing disability advice to employees and employers have a proper, practical knowledge of the needs of the private sector and of what employers are looking for, showing them that it may well be cost-effective to retain the employee in employment and not simply to rely on benefit, which gives rise to the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches today?

Mr. Bayley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken to draw a distinction between the private and public sectors. There is good practice and bad practice in both sectors. There is also very different practice between large firms which can carry people on long-term sickness benefits paid by the company, and smaller firms which cannot. The rehabilitation pilots seek to enable all businesses, whether in the public or private sector, to retain the employees they have, in whom they have invested by spending money on their training and building up their skills. At a time when unemployment is so low—the lowest level for 20 years—more and more employers want to retain people because they know that it is so hard to find others if they let employees go.

Poverty

Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of levels of poverty in the UK and other developed countries over the last 10 years, following UNICEF's recent report on poverty. [129322]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Research shows that we inherited one of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. As a result of policies that we have announced so far, we will lift over 1 million children out of poverty as well as tackling pensioner poverty.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that UNICEF's table on Britain's shockingly bad place in


child poverty leagues shows that we score among the top countries for the numbers of children in lone parent families, in workless households and in households with low wages? Does it occur to him that if he were to respond positively to the siren voices of the Conservatives by abolishing the new deal for lone parents, we should sink even further down the international child poverty league rather than tackling that scandal?

Mr. Darling: The new deal for lone parents almost pays for itself, so there would be no great saving if it were cancelled. Indeed, the position would be quite the reverse. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we inherited a scandal: Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, but the number of children living in poverty trebled during the 18 years to 1997. She was also right to identify the importance of measures to get more people into work. The number of people living in workless households is falling, but it is necessary to do more, such as increasing child benefit.
The Conservative party has a point to answer. The Opposition are determined to find £16 billion in public expenditure cuts. We all remember that they froze child benefit when they were in office, which offers a pointer to the sort of thing that they would do. Those who would suffer are many of the children who still live in poverty and who rely on us to lift them out of it.

Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State is right to point to the high poverty that he inherited. On 1 May 1997, many people hoped for a break in the long-term rapid growth of a divided Britain. Does he share my dismay, therefore, at figures produced by his Department last week showing that the trend continues, particularly among pensioners? How confident is he that the measures that he has introduced since those figures were published will reverse the trend and return pensioner poverty to the level that he inherited? Over what time scale will we begin to see serious inroads into the problem?

Mr. Darling: Let me deal with the point on pensioners. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the number of pensioners living in poverty has risen slightly. The reason is that although the proportion of pensioners living in poverty remains exactly the same, the pensioner population is increasing. He has not mentioned, however, that the minimum income guarantee and other measures were introduced only from April 1999 and do not, therefore, affect last week's figures.

Mr. Webb: No.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman may nod now, but that is not what he said to newspapers last week.
We knew that many pensioners were in poverty. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. If we had provided an across-the-board increase, we would not have solved the problem of pensioner poverty. The measures that we have introduced will do so. Year on year, people will see improvements as we reduce the number of pensioners living in poverty. In addition, we

shall introduce proposals for a pensioner credit later this year, which will help many pensioners who have modest savings or modest amounts in the bank.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am glad to hear the Secretary of State focus on pensioner poverty. I support the minimum income guarantee, which I, like others, have pushed hard in my own constituency. Does he accept, however—as I have said to him privately—that other measures such as the heating allowance are, according to the pensioners who have spoken to me, seen as gimmicks? What pensioners want, and what everyone wants for the sake of the Government's credibility, is a good, across the board increase for all pensioners. Will the Minister argue with the Chancellor for such an increase, on top of all the other measures, and when will pensioners receive it?

Mr. Darling: I shall not repeat what I said privately to the hon. Gentleman. He draws attention to the minimum income guarantee; since we launched our take-up campaign earlier this year, more than 130, 000 claims have been received, showing that the availability of the guarantee has begun to extend beyond the 1.5 million pensioners already receiving it.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the winter payments. The advantage of making those payments in their present form is that they are tax free and are not taken into account for benefits. If they were added to the pension, the very pensioners about whom he and I are concerned—those on low incomes—would lose out. I must disagree with him on that point.

Mr. David Willetts: What a fascinating exchange. At last, the Secretary of State admits that the number of pensioners in poverty has gone up, and his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly speaks for millions of pensioners who do not want the gimmicks; they want a reliable, basic state pension that is worth something. Buried on page 170 of the document that the Secretary of State published last week are some devastating figures. Do they not show that the number of families in poverty—with below half average income—has risen by half a million since Labour came to office? Many of those people are pensioners. Is that not a fraud perpetrated on the pensioner population?

Mr. Darling: What is a fraud is to suggest that the Tory party had nothing to do with the problems that we inherited or, indeed, to suggest that the Tories would do anything in the future. We came into office inheriting a situation in which the number of children living in poverty had trebled and almost 200 million pensioners were living in poverty. The problem arose because, whereas some pensioners saw their income go up by as much as 80 per cent. during the past 20 years, far too many pensioners saw their income go up by substantially less than that.
The problem with an across the board increase is that it does not help the poorest pensioners. The best that could be said for the proposals the Tories announced a month or so ago was that some pensioners would get 42, p extra a week before tax and before they started to lose benefits. Of course, 2 million pensioners would lose out as a result of their proposals—those pensioners are the poorest in the country.
We are determined to help alleviate pensioner poverty. We want to lift pensioners out of poverty and we will do that. The report published by the Government last week shows the scale of the problem that we inherited, as did the UNICEF report published a few months ago. Unlike the Conservatives, we are determined to lift pensioners and others out of poverty. Unlike the Conservatives, we have got, and are prepared to spend, the money to do so.

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State well knows that our proposals on pensions would go to all pensioners, including those who pay tax and those who are on means-tested benefits. Our proposals are costed on that basis.
The Secretary of State is always keen to blame everyone else and to blame his inheritance. Let me quote from another report. A report from the Cabinet Office, drawn up while the Labour Government were in office, made the following statement on their record on poverty:
there are too many Government initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering.
Is not that the record of the Government? Too much time is spent on negotiating the system and not enough on delivering. No wonder the Secretary of State's boss has admitted, as we know from today's memo, that
All of these things add up to a sense that the government…are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts.
Is not that their record on welfare?

Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the UNICEF report that is the subject of the question. When it was published two months ago, a Conservative party research bulletin was issued on the same day as the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:
We recognise that there is a problem with child poverty in this country…The report—
that is, the UNICEF report—
reveals shocking statistics about life in Britain for millions of children.
The hon. Gentleman did not point out that the report covered 1995, when he was a Minister. He should not complain when I draw attention to the fact that poverty—whether child or pensioner poverty—grew up over years.
Of course, it will take time to turn that around. The difference between us and the Conservative party is that we are spending some £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes than they plan to do. We are spending a similar amount on helping families with children—especially on alleviating child poverty. Yes, it will take time, but the difference is that, at the end of this Parliament, people will be able to see that we are turning the situation around. If they ever have the Tories back, there will be more pensioner and child poverty in this country.

Minimum Income Guarantee

Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [129324]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have announced details of the first Government take-up campaign to identify pensioners most likely to be entitled to the minimum income guarantee, and to encourage them to claim it. As the House knows, the campaign started on 30 May with intense activity on several fronts, including a fairly long television advertising campaign in three separate parts over the summer. Furthermore, the Government will be writing to 2 million identified pensioners who may have an entitlement, based on the information we already have. Pensioners can also claim without leaving their home by calling the new tele-claim centre's freephone service.

Mr. Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Thora Hird for her contribution to the Government's take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee? The guarantee will increase pensions in line with average earnings and those over 75 have already seen it increase their incomes by £16 a week. Will he assure me that the pensioners of this country need to be reminded that that this is an entitlement and not a gimmick, which is what the Conservative party has said, and that it would be abolished if there were ever a Tory Government again?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to those, such as Thora Hird, who have assisted the campaign. In addition, Nerys Hughes has contributed to a Welsh version of the campaign and Peter Sallis has helped as well. The campaigns are having an impact, as my hon. Friend has just said. There have been 133, 000 responses to date but, as I told the Select Committee on Social Security last week, it is too early to estimate the net effect and say how many people have gained from the minimum income guarantee. We will not have a figure for that until the end of this month. So far, we have sent out 417, 000 letters, which is not a bad achievement for this stage of the campaign.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Should not the Government encourage people to make provision for their old age? How will the minimum income guarantee assist them to do that? Is it not the case that those on low incomes will see their savings set against the minimum income guarantee? The Government are therefore, instituting an active disincentive. Should they not be making quite sure that all those in retirement who have paid the stamp throughout their working lives get a decent state pension on which they can live?

Mr. Rooker: It beggars belief to imagine where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last few years. The guarantee applies to today's poorer pensioners who are in that position because of the legacy that we inherited, in which the gap between the most well-off and the poorest pensioners had gone from a ratio of 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 in the 18 years that he sat sucking up to the Government whom he supported.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not true that today's pensioners have made provision for their old age by paying into the national insurance scheme for the last 50 years? The cost of the contributions that they paid in increased at the high rate of inflation, but the benefits that are paid out come to them at the lowest rate of inflation. We should restore the insurance principle.
The Government are to be congratulated on the take-up scheme, which is much better than any that has gone before. However, would it not be fair if the poorest pensioners, who were promised that the take-up scheme would start more than 15 months ago, had back pay for that period? The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), said that it would be perfectly possible to do that.

Mr. Rooker: As my hon. Friend knows, we can pay the benefit only from the day on which it is claimed, and everyone knows that it is available to be claimed. We have gone out in a proactive way—and not just in television and newspaper advertising—to trawl the Department's records and we have located 2 million pensioners to whom we shall write individually.
As my hon. Friend knows, today's poorer pensioners are in that position because, during their working lives, they were not able to contribute fully to the state earnings-related pension scheme, were not allowed to have an occupational pension scheme and were not among the group that would have been targeted by the pensions industry for the tins-selling of personal pensions. Today's poorer pensioners are there simply because the policy in the past was not sufficient to enable them to accrue a pension that would give them a decent standard of living. That is why we have a raft of other policies for tomorrow's pensioners, so that they do not find themselves in the same position as today's poorer pensioners.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The Minister has given us a raft of statistics about how many forms have been sent out, but will he tell us how many have been sent back and whether anyone has been paid under the minimum income guarantee since the campaign started? Does he agree with Help the Aged in Scotland that one of the reasons why pensioners are put off claiming the minimum income guarantee is that the benefits are so complex? Would it not be better for the Government to give pensioners a decent increase to the basic state pension, as we have already suggested?

Mr. Rooker: I may get done for repetition—and I bear it in mind that this is probably the last time that I shall appear at the Dispatch Box with you, Madam Speaker, in the Chair. I said that we have had 133, 000 responses since 30 May and I also said, as I told the Select Committee last week, that it was too early to give the House a figure for how many people had been successful. We will not know that figure until later in the month.
The hon. Lady was a member of the Government who introduced income support, so it would be much better if she did not denigrate it. We are using modern technology in the system so that we do not have to send 40-page forms for pensioners to fill in, and a two or three-page form can be produced electronically and filled in over the telephone, so people do not have to go to the benefit office. We are trying to do that proactively; that is the difference between us and the Conservatives, who ignored pensioners.

Mr. John Cryer: I accept what my right hon. Friend says about the minimum income guarantee. Is he aware that if the prices link alone had been in place

since 1948, the state pension would now be worth only £27 a week? Are we prepared to see the state pension, the basic building block of pensioner incomes, wither on the vine? Or will he rescue it by restoring the earnings link? On that subject, will my right hon. Friend remind the House who cut the earnings link in 1981? Was it the Tories, and if so, does not their pathetic posturing on pensioner poverty start to ring a bit hollow?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that had the basic state retirement pension been linked to prices since its introduction, it would be nothing like as much it is today—indeed, it would be far less. If we used the pensioner prices index, the increase would be less, so we do not do that. We must look at the average of total pensioner incomes. Taking the basic state retirement pension in isolation is not a true and fair reflection of pensioner incomes, so we must look at things in the round. That is why a previous Labour Government introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has allowed people on average earnings who have worked for 20-odd years since its introduction without a break in service to retire today with a pension income double the basic state pension. That is the legacy of the previous Labour Government.

Pensions

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension; and if he will make a statement. [129325]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I receive many letters in relation to the state pension.

Miss McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State regret the fact that he did not raise the state pension more when it was recently increased? That insulted pensioners, as the cost of petrol was increased more than the amount given to pensioners, thus saving his Department £90 million this year alone. Is he not embarrassed that the Conservative party is setting the agenda on pensions, and that pensioners realise that they will be better off under the next Conservative Government than they are under this Labour Government?

Mr. Darling: If anyone should be embarrassed, it should be the hon. Lady. She may not even have read her own party's manifesto, and may not recall that her party, in common with all the other principal parties in this country, stood on the commitment to increase the basic state pension in line with prices. The difference between us and the Tories is that we are doing more than that, spending some £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes than they propose to do. We are making sure that nearly half of that goes to the poorest third of pensioners, because we wanted to deal with the problem of pensioner poverty that has arisen in the past 20 years. An increase across the board would not have helped the poorest pensioners. We are reforming and strengthening SERPS, especially for those with low earnings. Frankly, when it comes to pensions, fairness and


doing the right thing for the pensioners of today and tomorrow, the Conservatives have nothing whatsoever to say.

Mr. Frank Roy: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said. I am delighted to hear that our party will continue to speak up on behalf of poor pensioners, which is why the minimum income guarantee is welcome in my constituency, as is the winter fuel allowance, which is certainly not regarded as a gimmick. That money is most welcome when it comes through to pensioners in December. If any Member does not want pensioners in his or her constituency to get their so-called gimmick, the pensioners in my constituency certainly need it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the winter fuel allowance of £150 will be paid before Christmas this year, as that is, of course, the time when pensioners most need the money?

Mr. Darling: Yes, this year the payment will be made in December again. My hon. Friend is right, and pensioners in Motherwell, and elsewhere, will remember that the legacy of the Conservative Government was to double VAT on fuel. The winter fuel of payment of £150, which Conservative Members intend to scrap, is of great help, especially to those on low incomes.
I remind the House that no matter what the Conservatives say about their pensions policy, they should remember what the shadow Chancellor—who, it seems, is now in charge of all policy matters in the Conservative party—said about Conservative pensions policy:
it is a one-off policy. It is money which is already being spent…
There is no new money.

Mr. Owen Paterson: In a rural area such as mine, public transport does not run everywhere and the car is essential. Will the Minister answer a simple question that is frequently put to me by my pensioners? Why was the price of petrol put up on the basis of an inflation rate of 3.3 per cent., while their pension was put up on the basis of an inflation rate of 1.1 per cent.?

Mr. Darling: If there is no public transport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I wonder whether he has explained to people that the Conservative party's policy of bus deregulation in the 1980s was largely responsible for damaging the public transport infrastructure.
As for the indexation of pensions, the increase has been based on the September retail prices index for many years—under the Government whom he supported as well as under ours. I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell the pensioners in his constituency that all the Tory party pensions policy will do is take away money that they are receiving at the moment and give it back to them, and that the maximum that they can expect is 42p before they start paying tax, and before 2 million of them start to lose benefit.

Housing Benefit

Miss Geraldine Smith: How much central Government contributed to Lancaster city council in the year 1999–2000 for exceptional hardship payments for housing benefit. [129326]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We made £20 million available to enable local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to make exceptional hardship payments of housing benefit during the financial year 1999–2000. Lancaster city council's share was £79, 000, of which, I am told, it spent 3.7 per cent.

Miss Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As she is aware, Lancaster city council spent only £1, 577 on exceptional hardship payments during 1999–2000, so the most vulnerable people in the area have missed out on those payments. What steps does her Department intend to take to make sure that exceptional hardship payments reach the people at whom they are targeted?

Angela Eagle: Realising that not all the money was being spent, we issued enhanced guidelines last year to encourage local authorities to use the money. They are also allowed to use another £30 million from their own resources, and clearly they are not doing that. In the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently going through the House, we are changing the law to ensure that if local authorities do not use the money for the hardship scheme, we will take it back from them; currently, they keep it.

Disablement Benefits (Appeals)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If he will review the guidelines used by the Benefits Agency to ensure consistency of policy by doctors who consider reviews and appeals on disablement benefits on behalf of the agency. [129328]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Doctors do not make decisions on benefit entitlement. Reviews are conducted by trained Benefits Agency decision makers. Appeals against the decision makers' decisions are considered by independent appeals panels.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay in north-west Wales—and, I suspect, elsewhere—that people who have been awarded incapacity benefit or disability living allowance, perhaps only in the past year or two, and sometimes for life, find that those benefits are being taken away from them despite the fact that their medical condition has worsened, sometimes significantly? Will he look at the guidelines that have been issued by the chief medical adviser for use by examining medical practitioners to ensure that there is consistency? It seems that some examining medical practitioners have a different interpretation of those guidelines; indeed, many of the cases in my area can be identified as arising from one person, who seems to take a very stringent view.

Mr. Bayley: In the Government's response to the Social Security Committee's report on medical services, we undertook to take four steps to drive up the quality and consistency of the medical advice given by medical services doctors. One of those four targets will require Sema to provide all its doctors, within one year, with training in behaviour, attitude and sensitivity when dealing with claims and assessments for people with disabilities, mental health problems or musculo-skeletal


problems. That is part of a national programme to train doctors to operate and give advice according to nationally determined standards.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to monitor successful review and appeals decisions in order to ascertain whether such decisions relate to any particular doctor's reports?

Mr. Bayley: I know that many hon. Members have suggested that, but there would be problems in tying the outcomes of appeals to the advice of individual doctors because the decision is made not by the doctor but by the decision maker. Nevertheless, it is on occasion clear to the appeals panel that the report provided by one of the Benefits Agency doctors is deficient. We have started talks with Judge Harris from the appeals service to find out whether there are ways in which he can notify our chief medical adviser when appeals panels believe that an inappropriate or inadequate report has been made by medical services doctors, so that we can take further action.

Mr. David Heath: I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Is it still the case that more than 50 per cent. of appeals are successful? If so, does not that suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the initial assessments?

Mr. Bayley: The proportion of successful appeals varies from benefit to benefit, but I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get more decisions right first time. That is what our decision making and appeals procedures are doing, by ensuring that correct medical and other evidence is collected at the outset of a claim, that it is properly assessed by the decision maker, and that the right decision is made. There will always be more scope for different interpretation with disability benefits, because they are more subjective than, say, income-related ones. One can look at somebody's bank account and it contains either more or less than the capital limit, whereas decisions on disability benefits are based on the advice of a doctor about whether, for instance, a person is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. That is more subjective.

Lone Parents

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What assistance his Department is giving to help lone parents find work. [129331]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal aims to make work pay, making it a practical choice for lone parents. The new deal for lone parents offers them help and advice on job-search, training, child care and in-work benefits. That is just one of a raft of measures that we have introduced, including the lone parent benefit run-on, the national child care strategy, the working families tax credit, and, of course, the national minimum wage.

Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply; I think that she knows that the legacy left in Plymouth by my Conservative predecessor was the poorest ward in

England. Indeed, such was the poverty that one of the two Oxfam projects in this country operates in the city. I thank my hon. Friend for the programme. Will she join me in congratulating the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, which, with the active help of the local evening paper, the Evening Herald, have delivered the new deal to lone parents in such a way as to enable 238 of them to enter employment in the past year, and several hundred more to take the first steps on the pathway out of poverty, which the new deal for lone parents represents?

Angela Eagle: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the authorities in Plymouth. Their outreach programme has been very effective. I know that the Benefits Agency and various other authorities work closely together to ensure that the benefits of the new deal for lone parents are made as widely available as possible. They hire a bus, operate from community centres and playgroups and go where lone parents and their children are. That is one of the more effective ways of getting the message across.

Mr. John Bercow: Given the fact that, as was emphasised earlier, it would take 26 years for all participants in the new deal for lone parents to secure employment, and furthermore, that there is evidence that those outside the scheme have a better chance of securing work than those inside it, why does the hon. Lady not abandon her bluster, give up the unequal struggle, admit that the scheme is an expensive failure, and move to abolish it without delay?

Angela Eagle: The scheme pays for itself and it is successful. I will not accept counsels of despair from a complacent Conservative party which caused the problem in the first place.

Social Fund

Mr. Paul Goggins: If he will make a statement on the role of the social fund. [129332]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The social fund is targeted at the most needy. It provides crucial help through grants and interest-free loans to people on benefits who would otherwise have trouble affording essential items.

Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the decision to double the social fund maternity grant from March. Will she tell the House what impact a cut of £90 million would have on the work of the social fund? Does she agree that the fact that the Conservatives are now making such a proposal demonstrates that when it comes to paying for their policies, they are still more than ready to penalise the poor?

Angela Eagle: I can tell my hon. Friend that the current annual budget for community care grants is £100 million, so if £90 million were cut, those grants would be almost wiped out. That would mean, for example, that a pensioner who needed a special sort of bed to remain in his or her home, or a disabled child's parents who needed


new bedding, or a washing machine, would find that the money was not available. The day the Conservatives announced that they would take that huge chunk out of the social fund, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is an Opposition health Front Bencher, said that it was essential that we had a social fund which could help people when they were in real need, because "every mother knew" that a washing machine was an "essential piece of kit". Yet the Conservatives would destroy that fund.

Pensioners (Tax Credits)

Mr. Roger Casale: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of a system of tax credits on pensioner incomes. [129333]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We believe that pensioners who have worked hard to provide for their own retirement should be rewarded rather than penalised. We intend to consult later in the year on proposals for a pensioner credit that will reward those who have modest pensions or savings.

Mr. Casale: Although it is absolutely right that the Government should do most to help the poorest pensioners, is it not true that some poor pensioners feel that they are losing out because they have modest savings or a small occupational pension that brings them above the threshold of the minimum income guarantee? Will my right hon. Friend seek ways—for example, tax credits or some other means—to reward those who make some provision for their future, and so ensure that all pensioners feel that they are treated fairly by the Government, while he, of course, continues to focus the lion's share of extra resources on those who need it most?

Mr. Darling: For years, the problem with the social security system was that it penalised those who had saved a little or who had modest occupational pensions. To ensure access to the minimum income guarantee we doubled capital limits, which as a result of Conservative policy had not been changed for years. Now we want to introduce a credit to make sure that if pensioners have built up a second pension—whether an occupational pension or a second pension under the amended and reformed state earnings-related pension scheme—they will receive the benefit of it. At present, under the system that has been in place for years, such people lose out.

Dr. Julian Lewis: If the Secretary of State is now a convert to the merits of tax credits, does he admit that the Chancellor was wrong to abolish tax credits on dividends? Does he defend the Chancellor, or does he agree with the senior No. 10 spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's press as saying:
Gordon may not accept it but lie has made big mistakes on pensions and fuel prices and sooner or later he will implode…He is poisoning relations with half the Cabinet and the sooner he goes the better…?
That must be a first—a No. 10 spokesman agreeing with the entire Opposition Front-Bench team.

Mr. Darling: As far as our changes in company taxation are concerned, companies will start to see the

gain as the system works through from next year onwards. That will, of course, benefit pension funds. However, so far as I am aware, the Conservatives do not plan to reintroduce the tax credit system to company taxation. If they are not going to do anything about it, a period of silence on their part might be appropriate.
On the subject of pensioners generally, let us keep reminding ourselves that the Labour Government are the ones who are prepared to spend more on supporting pensioner incomes. With their guarantee—even the amended version—the Conservatives would have to cut £16 billion from public expenditure, and we are told that most of that would come from the social security budget. Given that pensions take half the social security budget, it is not too difficult to see who would pay the price of the Conservative party's spending policy.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I assure my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, there is great appreciation of the Government's efforts to help the poorest pensioners, who remember how they were treated by the Tory Government. There has also been a wide welcome for the establishment of a working party to consider how to assist pensioners who have small occupational pensions. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that when the working party produces a report, there will be wide consultation with pensioners and pensioners groups, such as the National Pensioners Convention, run by Jack Jones, so that we can take pensioners with us and make sure that they help us in shaping future decisions?

Mr. Darling: It is important that any change to pensions should have widespread support. During the course of this Parliament, we have made changes to the pension system to ensure that more people can build up a second pension to go with their first pension, thereby increasing pensioner incomes. An essential part of that is the pensioner credit, which is designed to help pensioners who have saved a little money in the bank, or who have a modest occupational pension. The problem with the present system is that it works for those who are very well off, and the remaining pensioners lose out. We were not prepared to put up with that. That is why we have made the changes, which I believe will result in many pensioners being far better off than in the past.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State heard the rant that the Minister of State directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) when he dared to suggest that the minimum income guarantee was a disincentive to savings. Does the Secretary of State at least agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said:
As more and more people in work on low wages realise the futility of saving when every penny is taken from the Minimum Income Guarantee…fewer and fewer people on low income will save…?

Mr. Darling: I see that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has now gone, leaving just six Conservative Back Benchers present for this Question Time. I shall deal with the point that he made, albeit in his absence. He said that the minimum income guarantee was a disincentive for pensioners to save. However, the minimum income guarantee is designed to help people


who have already retired. Those are people who, through no fault of their own in most cases, have ended up in retirement with such low incomes that they are entitled to income support. If we abolished the minimum income guarantee, that would simply reduce the amount of money that poor people get, and that does not seem to be fair, or the right thing to do.
We are determined to do two things. First, we are ending the situation that existed when we came to office, whereby one person in three of working age ended up on income support from day one of retirement. That is what the Tories left us—one third of people heading for retirement on income support. That is why we have improved SERPS, as well as improving the occupational pensions and stakeholder pensions available. Secondly, we had to deal with the plight of people who had already retired, and were so poor that they were on income support. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which has given many of them increases of £8 a week, over and above inflation. That would all be at risk under the Conservatives, because they would have to find £16 billion-worth of cuts. Pensioners, and others, would pay the price of any Conservative Government.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the extent of the problems experienced by the Child Support Agency in obtaining money from partners who are (a) domiciled and (b) resident abroad. [129337]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): People who work abroad but live in the UK can be pursued for child maintenance by the Child Support Agency. Where possible, maintenance will be collected from wages by deductions of earnings orders. Non-resident parents who are not resident in the UK are outside the jurisdiction of the CSA. Parents with care who wish to seek maintenance in those circumstances must do so through the courts.

Mr. Dalyell: Ministers will know, through their excellent Falkirk office, that the genesis of my question lies in a poignant constituency case. What will be done about men who have skedaddled? I understand what my hon. Friend says about jurisdiction, but more could be done on reciprocity, could it not?

Angela Eagle: We have many reciprocal agreements with other countries on such matters, on which, in the circumstances, we must rely. We want the CSA to be effective, but I am not sure that we can use it to deal with men who skedaddle all over the globe.

Child Poverty

Mr. Derek Twigg: If he will make a statement on the measures his Department is taking to reduce child poverty. [129338]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Increases in benefits are contributing more than £2.5 billion towards the extra £7 billion a year spending on families with children by 2001. That will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament.

Mr. Twigg: All Labour Members are anxious to reduce and eliminate child poverty. Did the UNICEF report state that we were making good progress or that we had made a good start on reducing poverty? Is it not the case that the only guarantee from Conservative Members on which we can rely is that they will maintain and increase child poverty if they return to power?

Mr. Bayley: When the Conservative party was in office, the number of children in poverty trebled. We have set an ambitious goal of halving the number of children who live in poverty in 10 years, and eliminating child poverty in 20 years. If we achieve our goal of reducing by 1.2 million the number of children in poverty by the end of the Parliament, we will be on track to fulfil our objectives.

PRP (Teachers)

Mrs. Theresa May: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement on the High Court judgment of 14 July on the proposed teachers' performance related pay scheme.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): May I first offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? As you know, Madam Speaker, he has written to you, and he will also write to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). My right hon. Friend is outside London, and is currently travelling back. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have received a proper apology from the Secretary of State. I have accepted it, and I think that the House might do likewise. I know exactly where he is.

Ms Morris: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
As the House knows, the Government's plan to reform the teaching profession and to make sure that good teachers are paid more was first published in a Green Paper in December 1998. Teachers' pay and conditions are set out on a statutory basis, by order, after report by an independent review body, the School Teachers Review Body, and consultation. In January, the STRB recommended a new pay structure, including a performance threshold giving a £2,000 pay rise to those who were successful on 1 September 2000, and access to a higher pay scale. That will be put in place.
The standards that teachers should meet for the threshold pay increase were first published in draft in February 1999 as part of consultation on the Green Paper "Teachers—meeting the challenge of change". Wide-ranging, informal consultation over the following year led to formal consultation with the STRB's statutory consultees in February this year. The STRB was provided with early drafts of the standards as background for its review.
As a result of action by the National Union of Teachers, the High Court ruled on Friday 14 July that the standards were invalid because they should have been formally referred to the review body and set out in an order. The court also ruled that duties on school managers to carry out threshold assessment were unlawful because the consultation on the draft duties had been too short.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believed that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they are about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales. The written judgment of the court is not available. As soon as it is, my right hon. Friend will decide whether to appeal. However, the judgment did not comment on the standards themselves and did not give rise to any fundamental need to review Government policy on rewarding good teachers.
My right hon. Friend has today written to head teachers, advising them that the deadlines for threshold applications will be changed. We have already spoken to the STRB chair and will write to him formally today. The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity that teachers have had for a generation for a radical pay

improvement. All the Government have asked in return is that teachers do a good job. We intend to press on with paying good teachers more money within the correct legal framework with as little delay as possible.

Mrs. May: Does not the Minister accept that the Secretary of State's incompetence and his obsession with pushing through changes to the teachers' pay scheme, with no proper consultation and no regard for anxieties that teachers have raised, have led to the humiliating defeat that the Government suffered in the High Court last Friday, and the fact that nearly 200,000 teachers are now in limbo? Teachers know that they will not be given an expected £2,000 pay rise in September, and they are uncertain about when it might be paid.
Will the Minister tell the House what the new timetable for the threshold applications will be; when the Government the expect the assessment of those applications to take place; and when they expect to pay the teachers the £2,000 pay raise that will result from successful applications? If that money is unlikely to be paid until early next year, rather than in September—a whole term late—what will happen to the interest accrued on the money set aside until it is paid? Will the interest be paid to teachers in recognition of the inconvenience that the Government have caused, or will it at least be made available to schools?
Last Thursday the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation considered two statutory instruments relating to the teachers' pay scheme—the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 66) on Threshold and Leadership Group Payments, and the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 67) on Heads', Deputies' and Advanced Skills Teachers' Performance Pay Progression and Deputies' Assimilation. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked whether that discussion was sub judice and was told that it was not. In the light of subsequent events, will the Minister tell the House what will happen to the progress of those statutory instruments, given that they are clearly affected by the High Court decision last Friday?
In March, the National Union of Teachers persuaded the High Court that the Secretary of State must answer its case that he had acted unlawfully, but is not it the case that no member of the Government's legal team was present at that hearing? If so, why not? If the advice then being received was that the Government's case was doubtful, why did the Secretary of State not act until after the teachers had spent much of their half-term holiday filling in the over-bureaucratic forms that were required by the Government?
As the Secretary of State has attacked his officials and the advice that he received from them, will he publish that advice? Will the Minister publicly apologise to those officials on his behalf in the House today? Does she accept the judge's ruling that the threshold standards and the duty were unlawful and that the Secretary of State has bypassed the School Teachers Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Hear, hear.

Mrs. May: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have a great deal to say about the Welsh Assembly's role


in the matter, but the judge made it absolutely clear that the Assembly has been bypassed, as has the House. He went on to say that Parliament requires an independent body to scrutinise any significant contractual powers. The Secretary of State has evaded that scrutiny. Are not the judge's remarks a damning indictment that shows how out of touch the Government are and how arrogantly they treat not only teachers, but Parliament?

Ms Morris: It is a long time since I have heard such hypocrisy in the Chamber. Throughout the past 18 months of consultation on the Green Paper, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has made it clear that she does not agree with paying good teachers more money. She has tried to block that proposal and is against the threshold standard. Let us be clear that if she or other Conservative Members had anything to do with the policy, there would be no chance of a £2, 000 increase being paid—albeit, late.
Let us be absolutely clear that, during last Thursday's debate in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Cotswold said that he wanted the NUT action to be successful, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not deny that. The action has been successful and has resulted in delaying a much needed, much deserved pay increase for good teachers who filled in the application forms.
I shall now deal with some of the points of detail that the hon. Lady has made. I cannot give her or the House a timetable because that will have to be agreed by the STRB. Today, we have written to the STRB to ask it to start the formal consultation process. It will then come back and let us know what the timetable will be. My fervent hope is that the delay in paying the £2, 000 to those teachers who have completed the application form and are doing a good job will be as brief as possible, which is in keeping with the proper consultation that the court has asked us to undertake. That is important.
The hon. Lady also asked why the Government did not take action when the judge first allowed the judicial review at Easter and why we did not change the substance of what we are doing at that point. She ought to know that the detailed point that is causing difficulty—not consulting properly on the threshold standards—was not put before the court by the National Union of Teachers until 22 June. It did not form part of its submission for judicial review until only some weeks ago. The judge said at Easter that the judicial review was to be allowed, but not on the important point of exactly what the threshold standards should be.
It is entirely reasonable that departmental managers should assist heads in carrying out threshold assessments. I happen to think that that is part of their duty and responsibility, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not share that view. After the consultation on the STRB's recommendation, at the request of teacher representatives we consulted on line managers' responsibilities through the fast track and with the STRB's approval. The STRB said that that was fine. The judge said that the consultation had been too brief and that we should consult in the framework agreed by the STRB.
We shall backdate the payment of the £2, 000 from 1 September. It remains our fervent wish, and it will be the case, that for the first time in the history of the

profession teachers will be able to stay in the classroom and have their professionalism recognised and rewarded. They will receive substantial pay increases for doing what they went into the profession to do—to teach, and to teach well.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many electors will be bemused and many teachers frustrated by the delay in introducing performance-related pay, which, I was told in my constituency on Friday evening, many teachers have provisionally spent? There is great disappointment about the delay, but I take it from her remarks that that will be sorted as quickly as possible for all those who believe, as I do, that performance-related pay will ensure that better teachers—that means the bulk of teachers—are rewarded. However, will she warn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to compete with a former Conservative Secretary of State? The House lost count of the number of High Court judgments that found that he had acted illegally. Off the top of my head, I think that the total was 20, but I am happy to be corrected on the exact number.

Ms Morris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read my hon. Friend's comments and take them to heart. The NUT is the first trade union in the history of the movement to go to court to block a £2, 000 pay increase for some of its members. I share his view that many teachers in the staff room today will wonder why their union has acted in that manner, particularly as the matter was not raised until 22 June.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister has grossly caricatured the NUT's position. It went to court to defend the principle that it should be consulted when significant changes are made to teachers' contracts. Does she accept that the Government had plenty of warning of the problem? The application was made in March and, although it did not concern the specifics, it still posed general questions about the scheme. The Government will also be aware that early-day motion 628, which was tabled in April and signed by 70 Members of all parties, highlighted exactly the problems that led to Friday's judgment.
Does the Minister accept that the Government have left teachers in an appalling situation as they head off for their summer holidays? Will she offer them certain guarantees? Will she guarantee that no teacher will have to reapply for the scheme, and that those who would have been successful under the current system will be able to go through without making further applications? Will she guarantee that payments will be made in September, as teachers had a right to expect before the Government made a cock-up of the system?
Will the Minister say under which Act the consultation will now take place, and what the mechanism will be for consulting the Welsh Assembly? Can she guarantee that there will be a debate on the subject and will she indicate when she expects that to take place? Finally, will she offer an apology to civil servants and teachers for what has occurred, which is the Government's fault and which cannot be laid at the feet of a trade union that is simply doing its job?

Ms Morris: I barely recognise some of the hon. Gentleman's comments, given the process that has taken


place. He says that there has been no consultation. There has been so much consultation on these standards that many people have been exhausted by it. The standards were first published in February 1999. There was informal consultation for almost a year. There was further informal consultation on amended draft standards in January and formal consultation for four weeks following the STRB's report in January. On two sets of draft standards and on one set of full standards, consultation took place over about 13 to 14 months.
The hon. Gentleman may want to consult for longer than that. Teachers would wait an awfully long time for money to get into their pay packets if the consultation were extended.
The hon. Gentleman is not right about the NUT seeking only to defend its members' interests in the process of judicial review. It went for judicial review for two reasons when it first made a submission. The first issue that it took to judicial review was a challenge to our wish to make line managers responsible for assisting heads in the proper assessment of teachers.

Mr. Phil Willis: The High Court said that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully.

Ms Morris: Not all teachers; just departmental heads. The NUT might argue the contrary, but that is not the case. That was made clear to it and it was accepted by every other teacher union.
I am happy to defend the proposition that it is right that departmental managers should assist heads in proper assessment. As a former teacher, I would want the manager most closely knowledgeable about my performance to be involved in assessment, as well as the head teacher.
The second issue on which the NUT went for judicial review involved matters concerning the Welsh Assembly, which it did not pursue. The matter which is now causing difficulty is not one on which it has spent months defending its members. It was added to the brief by its lawyers on 22 June. If the issue was so important that it struggled to talk to us about it during the 18 months of consultation, one might imagine that it would have drawn it to our attention before 22 June.
I am unable to give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Timing is now in the hands of the STRB. We shall endeavour to ensure that there is as much expedition as possible within a proper consultation framework. We cannot say that payments will be made in September. Let it be clear that this is the effect of NUT action. The money will not be paid in September. There will be a delay, but within the framework of proper consultation we will do what we can to make it as easy as possible for the teachers who are eligible to get the pay rise that they deserve. I can promise that it will be backdated to 1 September.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Minister confirm that there is no effective appraisal system anywhere that does not involve the recommendations and views of line managers? In that respect, the NUT was fundamentally wrong. Will my hon. Friend confirm also that the judge did not rule in favour of the NUT when dealing with the principle raised by that issue?
I met two teachers in my constituency yesterday who have applied to go through the threshold and are extremely concerned at the delay that the NUT's action will cause. Will my hon. Friend use all available means to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, even if that involves introducing legislation? That would have the merit of getting pay increases implemented as quickly as possible and of putting the Conservative party on the spot, by making it clear that it fundamentally opposes additional pay for teachers who deserve it.

Ms Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is right about performance management. Indeed, many schools have no performance management system. That shows how successful the previous Government's system of appraisal was: it has withered on the vine through lack of financial support. We wanted to implement a system of performance management that could properly value teachers' skills, lead to professional development opportunities for teachers and provide a proper assessment of their performance.
It is right and it makes sense that departmental heads and line managers should be involved in appraisal and performance management. I assure my hon. Friend that on Friday the judgment did not criticise either the responsibility of line managers or the standards: it concerned a technicality on the consultation process. I well understand the actions and words of the two constituents whom my hon. Friend met, and the confusion as a result of this action that there must be in many staff rooms as the end of term approaches.
As I said, letters are going out tonight to head teachers making the position clear. I have today spoken to teachers' representatives, who will do their best to make the position clear. We shall continue to update teachers, head teachers and others. We shall write again next week, and post up-to-date information on the DFEE website from the end of this week. We shall do all we can to put this process back in order and back on the road.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I think the Minister and many people agree that the National Union of Teachers has scored a luddite own goal. Will she confirm a point that was raised earlier, but which she did not deal with? Many teachers have spent a lot of time filling in the forms to apply for the extra money to which they are doubtless entitled. Will she confirm that they will not have to go through that exercise again? If they have filled in the paperwork, they may have to be a little more patient, but they should not have to go through that exercise all over again.

Ms Morris: Yes. The list of luddites includes the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Cotswold, and the NUT. They are strange bedfellows, but we have seen that combination of personnel on the Opposition Benches already this year. I too hope that teachers will not have to fill in another form. If after proper consultation the standards remain the same, it is entirely likely that no more forms will have to be filled in, because the assessment will be made against the same standards. If it is decided to change the standards, quite honestly it is a different ball game.
It is right that the consultation should take place and the STRB should act properly—I am not for a minute suggesting that that will not happen. All I can say is that,


from my soundings today with representatives of other unions, I think that it is their wish that teachers do not have to fill in a new form. That leads me to believe that some of the representations in response to the consultation may be such that changes will not be made.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am very glad that the Minister does not intend to be put off providing increased pay for excellent teachers by this delay. I am concerned that teachers who had felt confident that they would achieve the threshold and were counting on the money will now become anxious.
I appreciate the fact that the Department is writing to head teachers, but I wonder whether it would be possible to give the information that the Minister has given the House directly to people who have applied for the threshold. I fear that the messages will be garbled, and people will become anxious about their prospects. The information about whether people will have to fill in new forms and about the commitment to backdate the payment should get to those teachers who deserve this money as soon as possible.

Ms Morris: I accept the points that my hon. Friend made. The Secretary of State will write to Members of the House today or tomorrow to make the position entirely clear to them. When writing to heads, we have asked them to pass on the information in the letter directly to members of their staff who have applied for the threshold. At the moment, because the application forms and the assessments were not due to be with the organisation that will collect them, we do not have a list of the people who have applied. We shall do everything we can to allay fears. As ever, teachers get their messages from people other than the Department for Education and Employment. I know that teachers' representatives and others will work with us to make the substance of the issue as clear as possible.
I do not want to get this wrong. I do not want to prejudge the consultation that, rightly, will now take place with the STRB. We will do all we can. It is our hope that the standards do not change, so that we can carry on from where we were on Friday lunchtime and so that the delay does not lead to disappointment as money is not paid over.

Mr. Eric Forth: May I remind the Minister of her words in the 6th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation last week? When asked about the judicial review, the right hon. Lady said that if the NUT won its case, it would mean that
all the effort and good work that the teachers have put in to filling in and assessing the threshold applications and all the work that the assessors have begun to do to verify them would have to be scrapped and burnt.—[Official Report, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 13 July 2000; c. 21.]
Does the right hon. lady stick by those words? Was she informing the Committee correctly? Are we going right back to square one? If so, how long will the process take? How much will it cost? What will the additional cost to the Department, the budget and the taxpayer be?
Finally, what will consultation really mean? If the real consultation process—when it is finally carried out and completed—concludes that none of this was worth while and that teachers are all against it, will the whole thing be dropped?

Ms Morris: The NUT action could have caused what I said to happen if the Government then took no action to make sure that it did not. That is what we have been doing since Friday. The judge has said that the standards themselves and the threshold were not properly consulted upon; so, to all intents and purposes, they do not exist. If the NUT's action through the court were left at that, all the forms that teachers filled in would come to nought. However, the Government are taking action to make sure that that does not happen. By our action in going back to the STRB—or possibly appealing—those forms that have been filled in will stand, as I have just explained. If the standards themselves do not change, an assessment against those standards can carry on. That is our intention.
We do not have an estimate of the extra costs, but our intention is to make sure that the plans to pay good teachers more money are put back on board within the proper legal framework. If the NUT had not taken the action and the Conservatives had not supported it, none of this delay would have happened.

Mr. Roger Casale: May I tell my right hon. Friend that many teachers whom I met at school fetes in my constituency at the weekend are looking forward to the introduction of performance-related pay, have been working hard in preparation for it and will be disappointed by the High Court decision? However, they understand that Friday's decision was taken on a procedural issue and they will welcome the Minister's statement that the Government wish to move quickly to put the procedural issue right. They also understand that if these measures were ever challenged by the return to office of the Conservative party, not only would we lose the opportunity to have more money for school teachers, but we would lose the opportunity of more money for schoolchildren, school buildings, school books and everything else in schools besides.

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that we will see a U-turn on the threshold from the Conservatives, just as we have seen U-turns on everything else by them in the past few weeks. I am happy to confirm that we are talking about a technicality. On Friday, the judge made no comment on the threshold, the threshold standards or the obligation of managers to help with the assessment. The main point of the judge's statement was that the consultation had not been proper and long enough. It is that which we are seeking to correct. I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents and the many thousands of teachers who have filled in the form will see their good work and excellent teaching properly rewarded as soon as possible.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will be aware that the NUT in Wales took this action partly because of the agreement between all four parties in the National Assembly that we did not want teachers' salaries in Wales related to pupil performance. Given the strength of feeling and the opportunity that she now has to review the position in the light of legislation, will the Minister


look to clarify the issue and give the National Assembly for Wales the right to determine this matter in line with the wishes of all four parties?

Ms Morris: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a devolved matter. It falls to the Secretary of State, who is absolutely right to carry out those obligations as he has. It is also right that thresholds and standards should be the same across England and Wales, because of the movement of teachers between the countries. I happen to think that teachers make a difference. One of the ways in which they do that is by helping pupils to progress. It is right that pupil progress, as long as it is measured against the pupils' starting point and takes into account the circumstances of their learning, should be one—but only one—of the standards that form the threshold assessment.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Minister remind the House that the Government embarked on this progress because they were determined that good classroom teaching should be rewarded, and that no scheme exists to reward teachers on the basis of the quality of their work? Will she confirm what she said on Thursday in the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation—that the money exists to give the increase to the vast majority of teachers who have applied and that a great number of people will now be disappointed because they will not get the money that they should be getting in September?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. This is of course an opportunity to get more pay on top of the pay increase this year. It is not that the increase is payable only on the basis of performance. There is an above-inflation, non-staged pay increase at the proper time this year, and above and beyond that the Government set aside £1 billion for teachers' pay.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that at the moment the only way of getting paid more than £24, 000 a year as a teacher is to take on management or administrative responsibilities. It must be right for good teachers who want to stay in the classroom to be able to access more than £24, 000 a year without having to take on those responsibilities. The previous Government made no opportunity for them to do that. We have put good teaching at the centre of our education agenda, because it is crucial to children's life chances. What is more, we have backed that up with a proper opportunity to be recognised and paid for good teaching.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister answer the question that she has repeatedly avoided answering this afternoon? Does she agree with the Secretary of State that it was civil servants' fault, or does she accept that Ministers must take the blame for this pathetic and costly courtroom fiasco?

Ms Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that it is Ministers and he who carry responsibility for Government decisions.

Points of Order

Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, extremely damaging reports were circulated that the Challenger 2 tank, made in Newcastle, could not fire German ammunition. It is a fact that, within days, there is to be a decision by the Greek armed forces on whether to buy Challenger 2 or a German tank. I know that my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is extremely concerned that thousands of jobs on Tyneside and elsewhere in northern England have been put at risk. Have you had any notification that Ministers of the Crown intend to come to the Commons to blow this damaging nonsense to pieces?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Ministry of Defence or any other Department that a Minister wants to make a statement on that matter, at least today.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a pukka point of order, Madam Speaker, that has lasting significance for the House. 1 refer to the difference between the questions that can be tabled in the Commons and in the Lords. I believe that your office has had some notice of the background to this matter. Today, I attempted—I make no criticism whatever of the Clerks at the Table Office—to table the following question to the Home Secretary:
In the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Weiz and the Attorney General's reference No. 3/1999 on 26th May, whether they will refer to the Law Commission the question whether the statutory restrictions on the use of DNA to be found in section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be maintained or relaxed; and, if not. why not
I have a lasting interest in the use of DNA in the criminal context, believing that it is of great value in establishing guilt and also in quickly proving innocence and allowing many people to be cleared who might otherwise hang around for months under suspicion. No one doubts that my question is highly significant. The Table Office, in detail with which I shall not bore the House, rejected part of the question and said that it did not fall within Commons rules. However, for once, the question was not dreamed up by me—although I am deeply interested in it—but came from the fertile and formidable legal mind of Lord Ackner, who tabled it in the other place.
In the twilight of your Speakership, Madam Speaker, could you bequeath to us a statement about the desirability of some synchronisation between the Commons Table Office and the Lords Table Office? As the Lords makes more and more claims for itself, surely it is a question of sauce for the Commons gander and sauce for the Lords goose? If the House of Lords is to change, there should be some synchronisation of the criteria used in the Table Offices. Personally, I would like the Table Office rules in the Commons relaxed so that we can ask what we really mean.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that there has not been in the past nor will there be—certainly for as long as you are Speaker—any tightening of the


rules and criteria applied by the Table Office? Many hon. Members feel that a change has taken place, possibly since roughly May 1997—without putting too precise a date on it. The House would be grateful, in the context of the point of order from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), if you could give us that assurance.

Madam Speaker: I am pleased by the tribute that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) paid to the Clerks of the Table Office, who do a very good job on behalf of all Members of this House. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a little notice of what he called a "pukka" point of order. I would not quite say that, but it was long one and, having had notice of it, I have been able to make thorough inquiries.
I have seen the notice to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he read out to the House. I am satisfied, as he is, of course, that it has been dealt with under our rules. What the House of Lords does in relation to questions is entirely a matter for that House, just as our rules are a matter for this House. As hon. Members know, our rules have evolved over many years and have been examined and reconfirmed by the House on several occasions. There are several areas in which our procedures differ from those of the House of Lords, but I see no reason why that should be changed. If the House wishes the procedures to be synchronised with those of the House of Lords, it must decide that that should happen. However, it is a matter for the House, not for the Speaker or for individual Clerks. If the House wishes to synchronise procedures with the House of Lords, it must table the proper motions to achieve that.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to ensure that journalists do not put a spin on the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—that there has been a tightening of the rules on the tabling of questions since 1997—will you confirm that there has been no change whatever?

Madam Speaker: There has been no change whatever. The Clerks at the Table and all the Clerks throughout the House operate, as they have always done, on the basis of helping and assisting individual Members in the best interests of those individual Members.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EC BUDGET (BALKANS)

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. COM (2000) 300, the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB) of the

European Communities for 2001 (Volumes 0, I, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8), and the Commission's Overview of the PDB (Provisional Volume 0); 8795/00, Commission Communication concerning revision of the financial perspective (2001–2006); financing of the programme of assistance for the Western Balkans; and re-classification of aid to Cyprus and Malta; proposal for revision of the financial perspective; COM (2000) 268, Commission Communication on 2000–2006 financial programming of heading four of the Community Budget; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 2 to 4.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security Amendment (Students) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.

AGRICULTURE

That the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Sheep, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved

ANIMALS

That the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary to move the Football (Disorder) Bill (Allocation of Time) motion, I should tell the House that two manuscript amendments to the motion have been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and that I am prepared to select them for debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard a little earlier that manuscript amendments had been tabled. Will you ensure that those amendments are made available to hon. Members?

Madam Speaker: I inquired about that some time ago. My understanding is that the amendments are available in the Vote Office. However, those concerned will have heard me raise my voice on this matter, and will no doubt make sure that they are.

Football (Disorder) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill:—

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion.

(3) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put by the Chairman or Speaker—

(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or
(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill;
the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions or (as the case may be) those provisions.

Order of proceedings

3. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill: and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory motions

4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

5. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Business Committee

6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders

7.—(l) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

This is a guillotine motion. The House will acknowledge that such motions are to be avoided wherever possible, but it is accepted on all sides that they are sometimes inevitable. I hope that there will not be too much trade across the Chamber about this Government's record on guillotine motions, but I remind the House that, in 1988–89, 17 Bills were guillotined by the Conservative Administration, at a time when that Government had a majority of well over 100.

It happens that one of those Bills was the Football Spectators Bill, for which the guillotine motion was moved exactly 11 years ago today, on 17 July 1989. It was moved by Mr. John Wakeham, now Lord Wakeham, in terms remarkably similar to the case that I have put before the House for the need for this business to proceed as quickly as possible.

However, within the imperative that the business for the rest of the week, including that for tomorrow, has to be protected, the Government are anxious to proceed by agreement. The burden of the amendments shortly to be moved by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is that the Committee stage should end at 12 midnight, and that all other Commons stages should end by 5 am. I am pleased to tell the House that the Government will be ready to accept the amendments.

It may also help the House in judging whether the motion, as amended, allows sufficient time for debate, if I say how we intend to deal with some of the principal issues raised by the amendments that will come before us. I promised in the statement that I made almost two weeks ago, on 4 July, that I and the Government would listen carefully to all representations made about the draft Bill and then about the Bill as introduced, and that we would respond positively wherever we could.

The House will know already that I responded positively to two suggestions made about the pre-legislative draft by Lord Ackner and Lord Alexander of Weedon. Lord Ackner proposed that reasons given at the point of a direction being made to require an individual to attend a court under the fourth part of the Bill should be given in writing. Lord Alexander of Weedon proposed that the Bill should contain a sunset clause and that there should be a process for reviewing the legislation. Both proposals were worked into the Bill on presentation.

I deal briefly with the other amendments, to indicate the changes that I am ready to accept, which will be obvious to those who have read through the Order Paper. Considerable concern was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of the key police power, in the fourth part of the Bill. There


was concern about whether the powers given to the police to detain people for inquiries and then to direct them into court were too wide.

We have considered the provisions again in the light of the representations and the amendments which have been tabled. The criteria which are now before the House, contained in amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46, seek essentially to replicate the grounds for detention and arrest, which are already provided, and have been accepted by successive Governments and Oppositions, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the place of a power giving a constable a right to exercise those powers under proposed new section 21 A in schedule 1 to the Bill, if it appears to him that the behaviour of the person present before him is such that he may be a candidate for a banning order, amendment No. 42 now requires that the constable in uniform
has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in section 14B(2)—
that the person has been involved in violence and disorder—has been met. He must also have reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order in the person's case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. The PACE power is a much more constrained power, which we propose, subject to the will of the House, to insert in the Bill.

Concern was also expressed about the fact that it seems from the Bill that a police officer might hold an individual for questioning, with a view to making inquiries, for 24 hours. Under further amendments that we have tabled, the power to hold someone for questioning to find out whether there are reasonable grounds for a direction to be made to get someone into court is reduced from 24 hours to four hours, with an extension to a maximum of six hours when an inspector agrees. That period must be contained within the overall period of 24 hours specified in the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Home Secretary will anticipate, the amendments are welcome. However, given that they are being tabled now, in Committee, to a Bill that has already been published, does that mean that the original Bill was bad law or bad drafting?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been getting the impression from what the Home Secretary has been saying that he is going into the details of the Bill and not simply dealing with the allocation of time motion. I hope that he will be very careful on that point.

Mr. Straw: Indeed; I fully acknowledge your point, Madam Speaker, as ever.
I was seeking to reassure the House, given the position that the Government are taking on a series of amendments, that there would be sufficient time under the timetable motion, as amended. Had the Government intended not to make any amendments to the Bill to meet the will of the House, as expressed in debates last Thursday and outside the House, there might have been a

different argument for extra time to be allocated. That is why I felt that it might be helpful—I will be very brief, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Thank you—I think that we understand that now.

Mr. Straw: If I may conclude my point, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11) has tabled amendments to the powers contained in proposed new sections 21C and 14C on criminal law in this country or outside. We propose to accept those amendments. We propose to accept amendment No. 37, in the name of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), on the need for a written explanation for a decision to detain a person to make inquiries, and amendment No. 32. We have also put down amendments on Report which accept the burden of amendments Nos. 23, 3 and 5.

Mr. David Davis: In view of the number of amendments that the Home Secretary has, very properly, brought before the House today, may I take him back to his original statement, when I asked him whether, in organising the time available for the Bill, he would allow time for outside authorities to consider the changes? In other words, we want a gap—even the smallest of gaps—between Committee and Report so that we can take advice before giving the Bill its final consideration.

Mr. Straw: We took account of representations made about the need for a gap between Second Reading and Committee and Report. That is exactly what we provided. The whole House—[Interruption.] I think that the whole House accepted the case for proceeding speedily with the Bill. That was certainly the view of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in his speech of 22 June. He offered full support and co-operation in Parliament to Government legislation to do what the Bill provides for. We are meeting our obligation to introduce that legislation, and I hope that Conservative Members will accept the obligations made on their behalf by their leader.

Mr. Eric Forth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: I should not suggest for a second that the Leader of the Opposition has any control over the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Indeed, I shall be happy to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency association is told about the insult that I apparently caused him by suggesting that he ever follows his leader. I shall personally write to his association to that effect.
Let me deal with the point made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). I said from the start that there was a need for speed with this Bill, but that it had to be combined with the need for care. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cannot have it both ways—

Mr. Davis: He is a Liberal.

Mr. Straw: Perhaps I should rephrase my point. Those who try to have it both ways end up in pretty incredible


positions—[Interruption.] It is lucky that I am deaf in one ear. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot call for an inclusive process by which legislation is set before the House in early preliminary draft form while also suggesting that the Government should have brought proposals to the House that we would unswervingly refuse to change.
During my time as Home Secretary, every Bill that I have introduced has been improved by debate and discussion. I happen to hold the perhaps slightly old-fashioned view that the collective wisdom of the House and the other place is greater than the individual wisdom of a Secretary of State for the Home Department, even one like me. I am grateful to the House for its positive suggestions.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's kind remarks, which I much appreciated. Is he prepared to distinguish between the alleged necessity for a Bill such as this to be passed quickly and the entirely artificial deadline of a football match? It has been claimed that that match creates the need for us to act with unseemly haste, but a distinction can surely be drawn—even in the Home Secretary's mind—between the need for properly expedited parliamentary process and the utter collapse of that process just so that we can meet the artificially imposed deadline of a football match.

Mr. Straw: I happen not to think that the deadline of a football match is an artificially imposed one. It happens to be a reality. If there were not to be any international games of note during the next six months, the House could debate the matter more slowly. It is significant, however, that one of the main reasons advanced by the then Mr. John Wakeham in favour of a guillotine motion on 17 July 1989 was the imperative of having provisions on football spectators on the statute book because of impending international games.
The views of the Leader of the Opposition may not persuade the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but they should persuade one or two other Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, in offering full support and co-operation in Parliament for Government legislation, made the point, among others, that England's qualifying matches for the next world cup are only months away. As a consequence of debates that we have had and that we will have today, the Bill should be able to go to the other place in good order, and it will be up to the other place to do its job as a revising chamber.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the guillotine motion, I accept the Home Secretary's assurance that he has tried to ensure that he listens to the House and to colleagues. I am grateful for that.
Given that point, why did the Government not accept the proposition on the guillotine put by my hon. Friend hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), our Chief Whip, and others, that we take the Committee stage today, allowing Members time to study amendments—including Government amendments—that appeared only today, and take the remaining stages on Wednesday? That would still leave reasonable time to complete proceedings on the measure before both Houses rise for the summer recess.

Mr. Straw: That is a matter for the usual channels to sort out. We wanted to accommodate the official

Opposition by agreeing to an amendment today. My understanding was that the period was the maximum possible to allow the Bill to be considered in the other place, subject to its procedures, leaving time for it to return to this place for any changes. I think that is the view taken by the usual channels.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who has referred to "a football match" that we are not discussing people who will be going to a football match? Six weeks on Saturday, hundreds of them will travel to Paris—a journey of three hours on Eurostar or of six hours in an old van with dozens piled into it. They will be going simply to try to wreck the city. They are not interested in football; they will have no tickets. The right hon. Gentleman is not even listening to the debate. He should understand that the matter is nothing to do with football—an invading, marauding army will be out to smash up Paris, denigrating the name of this country. That is the reason for the haste.

Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's comments, although I do not think there is a fine line between haste and speed. I have tried not to be hasty in this legislation, but to ensure that we deal with it both speedily and carefully.
If Members reflect on the measure, they will realise that a large part of it is uncontroversial. It consolidates provisions on national domestic and international banning orders and combines them. The parts that have caused controversy and given rise to concerns from some but not all right hon. and hon. Members are relatively few—although they are important. If hon. Members accept that, and reflect on the time that I have devoted to consultations outside the Chamber with Members of both Houses and in this House, they will realise that, by the time our proceedings are concluded later tonight, we shall have given almost as much time to the key operative clauses that aroused controversy as would have been spent on them had the Bill been dealt with more slowly. It is in that context that the guillotine motion, which will be amended, I hope by agreement, provides sufficient time for Members to consider this important matter and to come to conclusions on it.

Sir George Young: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 1(2), leave out from "conclusion" to end of sentence and insert "at midnight".

Madam Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendment: in paragraph 1(4), leave out from "Consideration" to end of paragraph 1(5) and insert—
and on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July".

Sir George Young: The House is entitled to a brief explanation of why the Opposition are amending a guillotine motion tabled by the Government. Such motions underline the difficulties of trying to programme all our debates and to place rigid barriers around them. Not only are the traditional ways of handling our proceedings more flexible, but they ensure that the time available is spent on the issues and not on—sometimes—


controversial procedural motions that prevent hon. Members from speaking. Furthermore, the original motion shows the time scale that the Government think suitable for timetabled Bills—four hours for the remaining stages of a controversial Bill gives a preview of a rather restricted regime.
Last Wednesday, in a business statement, the Leader of the House announced that, on Thursday, the House would debate the Second Reading of the Bill after 7 pm. In response to a question from me, she said that she would not guillotine the Bill's Second Reading. In the event, the proceedings on Thursday evening were concluded after a reasonable period of debate, given the controversial nature of the Bill. Although I asked her about the arrangements for the remaining stages, she did not reply but referred to the usual business statement that she would make the following day.
On Thursday, the Leader of the House announced the business for Monday as the remaining stages of the Bill, but she did not mention a timetable motion. Here we have to shine a torch on the subterranean world of the usual channels. On Thursday morning, we indicated that there was a good chance of concluding discussions on Monday after nine or 10 hours of debate. Our usual channel was reasonably confident of delivering on that and, by and large, we have a good record of delivering on such undertakings. We also believed that that offer would be acceptable to the Government, who would get their Bill on Monday night if the House so decided but without the aggravation of a time-consuming guillotine motion on a Bill that raises important issues.
There was then a communication failure, and a guillotine motion was tabled by the Government to bring discussion to an end by about 11 pm. Not only would that allow inadequate time to debate the Bill, but up to three hours would be lost in debating the motion. The Government, I believe, accept that they were wrong to table the motion and were anxious to revert to an informal arrangement.
The obvious way to resolve the problem would have been for the Government not to move the guillotine motion, but to suspend the 10 o'clock rule in the usual way. Discussion could then have proceeded normally. However, procedurally, that cannot be done—and some hon. Members can explain that better than I can. As the Government have not tabled a routine motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, the only way that the 10 o'clock rule can be suspended is if the guillotine motion is moved.
The way to get the Government out of the difficulties in which they find themselves and to allow the House reasonable time for debate is for the Opposition to amend the guillotine motion to allow for the amount of time that on Thursday we thought was reasonable. That is exactly what we have done. We have proposed that the Committee stage end at midnight and that the remaining stages—Report and Third Reading—end at 5 o'clock in the morning.
I hope that the House understands roughly what has happened even if it remains a mystery to most of the rest of the world. I hope that our amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Let me first deal with the issue of the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is the usual channel for the Liberal Democrats for these purposes, made our position clear when he intervened on business questions on Thursday. Nothing underhand or behind the scenes went on. From the beginning, we have taken the simple view that we should have a proper Second Reading debate that was not guillotined—that was achieved—that we should have the Committee stage on one day and that there should be a further day between Committee and the remaining stages of Report and Third Reading. For reasons that I gave when I intervened on the Home Secretary, we made that case not just so that the House would have time to reflect on what it had done in Committee, but so that people outside the House—the Football Association, football clubs, proper football supporters, civil liberties groups, lawyers and ordinary people who take an interest in such matters and who read the newspapers that comment on them—could submit a view to us or to colleagues in the House.
Two propositions are before us and both, in any logical world, are unacceptable. The first is that we have a seven-hour straitjacket: three hours for discussions on how long the debate should be; two hours for the Committee stage in which to debate 46 amendments of which 15 appeared on the amendment paper for the first time today and of which five are the Government amendments that the Home Secretary mentioned a moment ago; one hour for Report—how one would table amendments between Committee and Report is a mystery—and one hour for Third Reading. Under that proposition, debate would run from about 4 pm to 11 pm., and it is not satisfactory because the whole debate would be held on one day.
In a strange, paradoxical, Alice-in-Wonderland and upside-down world, I suppose that we should be grateful for the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House. That says that the Committee stage will take place until midnight and that Report and Third Reading will go on until 5 o'clock. In a sane legislature, one would not imagine that at midnight—after having heard the Committee stage—the Football Association, football clubs, newspaper readers, our constituents or ordinary people will suddenly get out of their beds and phone in their ideas so that we can table, without debate being interrupted, our amendments for Report even if we could get them in on time. Those people would then sit happily, as we sit happily until 5 o'clock in the morning, as a sane Parliament introduces at sane hours a sane piece of legislation.
I understand why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire have tabled their amendment which, however, is barely more sane than the original proposition and is certainly not as sensible as the proposal that we should have Committee stage today, take a breather and think about what we were doing, before coming back on Wednesday.

Mr. David Davis: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman. I did not get an answer from the Home Secretary when I asked


about this matter. The hon. Gentleman, however, did and was told that this action had to be taken to fit with Lords procedure and get the Bill back to us in time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than try to do this so quickly, a better procedure would be to extend our sitting into August for a couple of days?

Mr. Hughes: The direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is yes. It is clearly logical that Parliament should seek to complete its normal business before we go on holiday than determine its business by when we fix our holidays. Again, that is an upside-down world. Most people who run a private business do not choose when to take their holidays and then decide to disappear and leave the business, even if they have to carry out a major contract.
To be fair, the Home Secretary did not say absolutely that the suggested arrangement was impossible, but he was wrong to imply that it was, as the other place proposes to have Second Reading on Thursday and will have Committee stage next Monday, allowing time for reflection, before having Report stage and Third Reading next Wednesday. The Lords have therefore allowed days between Second Reading and Committee stage, and between Committee stage and remaining stages. Under present proposals, they plan to finish their consideration of the Bill next Wednesday night, which allows both Houses two days in which to undertake whatever backwards and forwards performance is necessary to achieve our aim. It would therefore be possible to debate the Bill on Wednesday, and it could go to the Lords the same day. All that would happen would be that the printers would have to work through the night, which they do anyway.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As an experienced parliamentarian, he may be able to help me, as I simply have no idea how any of us can table any amendments after the Bill's Committee stage. For example, I do not know whether I am meant to table them in manuscript, and do not know to whom I should hand them, how they will be selected and how much time I will be given. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on that?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right, as there is no technically possible way of doing that, which is another nonsense. I do not understand why we are still behaving like this as we go into the new millennium.
Like me, the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to realise that some of us have argued about such matters, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who has debated them for many years. If the idea is to have a Committee stage, which is supposed to mean that a few people look at the matter in detail, and to which I shall come back in a second, followed by a Report stage, when all Members of the House, especially those who did not participate in the detailed consideration, can come back and have a look at the Bill, then logic should be that we have a little time in between, so that the work of the Committee can be shared for the benefit of those who have come for Report stage. Indeed, the logic is that one reads what happened in Committee before deciding what one wants to do on Report.
We have muddled that up in two ways. First, the same people are participating in the Committee and Report stages and, secondly, there is no time to amend the Bill. The proposal is not technically possible: it is a technical as well as a parliamentary nonsense.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that it is technically possible, but in such an absurd way that no one would ever do it. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) would have to write out his amendments in the closing moments of Committee stage and get to the Table in the few seconds between the motion to report the Bill to the House and the start of the Report stage. If there were a queue, I do not know how it could be managed.

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend reminds us that, over the years, many of us have given the Clerks amendments in, literally, a couple of seconds. My right hon. Friend is right, as that is technically possible. However, in commonsense terms, there is no chance for any of us to speak to a soul outside about what we have done in Committee. Furthermore, it is not possible for us to leave this place after the Committee and then to table amendments.
There is one more nonsense. We will now debate a Bill that, on the kindest interpretation, is very technical and legalistic, particularly when one takes into account the amendments. We will be debating definitions of important terms such as "reasonable cause to believe" and "reasonable cause to suspect" and important legal and judicial processes such as detention, arrest and court proceedings. We are undertaking consideration of the 46 amendments collectively. Potentially, 654 Members could contribute, excluding you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers and taking into account the one vacancy because of a death.

Mr. Simon Burns: What about Sinn Fein?

Mr. Hughes: I stand corrected. There are 652 potential participants, if one takes into account the fact that the two Sinn Fein Members cannot participate. What place in the world would sensibly hold a Committee stage with 652 participants?
We welcomed the draft Bill, but we could have had a Special Standing Committee, time between the different stages of consideration and a chance to do this job well. To put it bluntly, when such legislation was always foreseeable and could have been introduced at the beginning of the parliamentary year, halfway through the year or even a month ago, this is not the way to run a country, let alone to treat a Parliament.

Mr. Burns: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and if I understand him correctly, he is saying that to have 652 Members taking part in a stage of a Bill's consideration on the Floor of the House is not the best way to proceed. Has he ever made that argument before when we have taken legislation on the Floor of the House? I certainly have not heard him do so.

Mr. Hughes: I have not made that a Hughes campaign, although I have made the argument before. We have amendments in the names of Conservative Members,


Government amendments and Liberal Democrat amendments, all of which relate to drafting, and there are various alternatives for defining offences. I should have thought that the most important argument is that it is sensible for us all—including the hon. Gentleman, who has been involved in this legislation—to try to ensure that we have a debate such as those that we have in a Standing Committee, where we listen to arguments, consider what works best and come up with something that is likely to stand up as good law.
The point that follows from that, and which led me to intervene on the Home Secretary, is that we will end up with bad law or bad drafting, or both. The Bill must contain bad law or bad drafting, or both, because the Government will today seek to persuade us to change it. I only hope that if it contains bad law or bad drafting, or both, Ministers will not, after today, blame their civil servants.
Many colleagues will not have had a chance to see many of the amendments because they appeared on the amendment paper only today. We all know that most colleagues travel from their constituency on a Monday morning and will have seen those amendments only when they got here, unless the Government sent them out round the country, which is unrealistic. That is nonsense. If we have to get the Bill on to the statute book by August, we should have had a deadline by which amendments had to be tabled. We could then have looked at the amendments and, depending on their number, we could have agreed a timetable and proceeded on that basis.
The Bill has an extraordinary variety of opponents, including Liberty, the Law Society, former Attorney-Generals, former Home Office Ministers, the chairman of the Police Federation and Lord Tebbit, as well as good solid burghers such as ourselves. If that coalition does not suggest that something is wrong with the legislation, I do not know what coalition would. This is not the way to treat Parliament, to make sane legislation or to run a country.
We gather from the memo that was leaked over the weekend that the Prime Minister wants to be tough. The price of rushing through incompetent but tough legislation is not one worth paying. It might be better to be a little less tough, a little less rushed and a little more competent.

Mr. Eric Forth: I always oppose guillotine motions, and this one is no exception—save that it is worse than most because of the circumstances in which it has been tabled. Right from the start, I have not accepted any argument that there is some urgency or unusual circumstance surrounding the Bill simply because events—football matches, of all things—provide a backdrop for the legislative process. I find that an insulting and absurd proposition.
I still do not see how the fact that our legal processes—and those of the host countries, for people travelling abroad—cannot deal, or more properly will not deal, with the matter in the present form, provides an adequate reason for this House and this Parliament to legislate in indecent haste. I reject the underlying reason that has been given time and again for the haste with which we are expected to deal with the Bill.
The second reason, which disturbs me more than usual, is the Bill's content. Without rehearsing it—there is plenty of time to start, but not complete that, this evening and into tomorrow—it affects citizens' liberties and freedoms and their relationship with the police and the judicial process. I would have thought that that is a sufficient reasonv—in fact, an overriding and overwhelming reason—to be more than usually cautious about how we deal with the Bill, and not the other way around. Yet, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, the whole matter has been stood on its head. We are being asked to process with indecent haste a Bill that touches on vital areas of individual liberty. That must be an absurdity.
The House and this Parliament have a well established series of processes, but let us look at the detailed provisions of what we are expected to do. Not everybody agrees with the processes; people all over the place who call themselves modernisers are saying that we must sweep such things aside and change them—but we have not done so yet. We still operate under our traditional, well established rules and procedures, which we thought were well understood. Along come the Government, who say, "No, for this Bill, because of the claimed urgency, and never mind the content, we want to fly in the face of what we have always thought in Parliament was proper."
The Bill was properly considered in principle on Second Reading last week, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, the House accepted. Yet we are to deny ourselves the normal Standing Committee arrangements, whereby a relatively small number of colleagues looks properly at the Bill and considers it in detail. Even more importantly, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, we are to deny other colleagues the opportunity to look at the Bill having considered what happened in Committee. Committees, after all, report to the House; that is the point of considering a Bill on Report.
How on earth, therefore, are we to deal with the Bill properly in Committee and then report it properly and after due consideration to the House? We cannot because Members have not been provided with a proper opportunity—between Second Reading and Committee, certainly between Committee and Report, and even on Third Reading—for mature consideration.

Mr. Straw: I think that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had always opposed guillotine motions. If that is so, will he explain why he voted for the guillotine motion on the Football Spectators Bill on 17 July 1989?

Mr. Forth: That would have been when I was a Minister; that changes everything. I meant to say to the House—I am grateful to the Home Secretary for pointing it out—that I have always opposed guillotine motions as a Member free to make my own judgment. As the Home Secretary kindly pointed out earlier, for which I was grateful, I believe that I am now a Member free to make my own proper judgments on these matters—and I hope that he accepts that I exercise that judgment in a parliamentary context when I properly should.
However, if the Home Secretary is suggesting that, during the period in which I had the honour to serve as one of Her Majesty's Ministers, I should have exercise


that same freedom, he knows as well as I do that, at that time, I accepted the same degree of collective responsibility as he now accepts. It is for that reason, albeit on a slightly different subject, that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be pleading a deaf ear moment ago, so let us not dwell overlong on such matters.
The urgency pleaded for the Bill is spurious and the timetable that has been suggested denies all that we have been brought up to believe is proper and necessary in parliamentary procedure. Not only are we as Members of Parliament not to be given an opportunity to consider such vital matters, but, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey points out, we are not to be given any opportunity to listen to, to consult or to receive advice and input from legitimate outside interests, whether football interests or legal interests or others—none of that will be possible.
I suspect and fear that the result will be uniquely bad legislation, because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted and prepared, the haste with which it has been altered, the extent to which the House has been unable to give it proper consideration and, most important, the way in which Members of Parliament have been unable to receive proper advice and input from outside. That is wrong in every conceivable way. I can conceive of no justification for the Bill, for the way in which it is to be dealt with, or for the likely end result. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not go along with the suggested arrangements, because they are a recipe for disaster.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am an admirer of the current Home Secretary; unlike some others, I think that he does care about the House of Commons and that he makes every effort to listen to individual Members who raise valid points. However, although discretion might dictate that I do otherwise, I am afraid that I have to tell him that I am not happy about these arrangements. To push through such a guillotine in such a manner on such an important Bill is not a good idea. I believe that we shall end up with legislation that is not acceptable, especially because several of its provisions have a direct impact on people's civic rights. That causes me concern, even though I do not pretend to have an easy solution to the problem of those who would go abroad and wreck everybody else's cities, rather than stay at home and wreck their own.
I am also concerned about something that my right hon. Friend said, although I might have misheard him. During his attempt to explain why he was being so amenable, he appeared to imply—I am sure that I must be mistaken—that the hours he had spent engaged in discussions with people outside the Chamber ought to be considered part of the debate and, therefore, a reason to allow the legislation to make swift progress. That is a slightly worrying suggestion and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that he did not mean it.
Although it was an endearing moment, inasmuch as it appears that, for the first time in many years, we have heard discussed the byzantine ways of the usual channels—a moment that makes sitting here worth while even in the absence of any other reason—we still come back to the fact that if the House rushes legislation and has no time to consider the implications, it frequently makes mistakes. We have the right to push legislation

through in one day: it has been done in my lifetime and in yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recall several Acts dealing with terrorism passing with total agreement and astonishing speed—although even some of those proved to be less than good legislation and had to be reviewed.
I do not want to detain the House and I am trying not to say anything that I have said many times before, but my misgivings are real because the Bill is one that will affect the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom. They may be reprehensible citizens of the United Kingdom; they may be people whom I do not want in my living room; they may be people whom I would oppose root and branch in political terms and in terms of their commitment to very extreme organisations; and they may be people who, I hope, never get to go abroad and represent the United Kingdom in any way at all.
However, I must say to my right hon. Friend that to rush a Bill through the House of Commons in short order at the end of the summer season, which is always a difficult period, may not be a good idea. I do not like it. I am not impressed with the Bill. Although my right hon. Friend has made enormous strides and has given way on various aspects of it, I remain extremely worried about the impact of the legislation.

Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who were in the Chamber at a late hour the other night have rehearsed some of the arguments already.
The Home Secretary has had two years since Marseilles, countless legislative opportunities to introduce a properly thought through, properly drafted Bill if he had chosen to do so, and ample opportunity for such a Bill to be properly debated in both Houses and for outside authorities to make representations and to have their views considered.
There has been a considerable number of debates around the subject. It is a disgrace for the Home Secretary to present to the House in a knee-jerk reaction, a fortnight before the end of the summer Session of Parliament, a Bill hastily cobbled together on the basis of the "do something" school of politics, rather than do the right thing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and he knows that that is why he has had to table amendments today, in a desperate attempt to cobble together some sort of coalition that might allow the measure to get through the House tonight, in order that their Lordships can try to do a damage limitation exercise and turn the Bill into something remotely workable.
This is a bad Bill. Hours of debate tonight—even the protracted hours that we are now told we are to be allowed to have—will not get it right, for the reasons given earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). A few hours, without proper consultation, will not turn a bad Bill into a good Bill.
The Home Secretary had to concede the other night, because he had no alternative, that the Bill's writ will not run in Scotland or Northern Ireland. All the commentators who have said that it is a Bill to control football hooliganism are wrong. It cannot do so, because the football hooligans can fly abroad from Scotland or Northern Ireland.
What is needed—this is why the timetable is wrong—is time, after the Committee stage and the acceptance of a few relatively minor amendments, to work out how to do properly the job that the Home Secretary says he wants to do. There is time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that it is wrong for the Bill or any legislation to be driven by a football match, or even several football matches, on the continent in the autumn. What matters is not that we do something, but that we do the right thing. The Bill is not the right thing; it is patently the wrong thing.
My friend the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said the other night, recalling the dreadful and now infamous Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, that he did not believe that the Bill was a replica of that. I am one of the relics of that Act. I am ashamed to admit that I was one of those who initially supported it. It went through under a Conservative Government, but with cross-party support. It was legislation in haste, which was repented at leisure. That was dreadful legislation because it was a knee-jerk reaction, on the basis of the "do something" school of politics, and it took us five years to amend it. It is still bad legislation, although it is marginally less bad than it was when we put it on the statute book.
What we are about to do, at the Home Secretary's behest if he is allowed to ram the Bill in its present form through the House in 24 hours, is to recreate a dangerous dog's breakfast. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do that. Even at this very late hour, I say to the Home Secretary, for pity's sake, allow the Committee stage to go through today, as it must, and then allow time, so that proper representations can be made and there can be a half-decent chance of our getting proper legislation on the statute book that stands an outside chance of working.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill is coarse and degrades Parliament; it is a tabloid Bill. We are discussing it today because of tabloid reaction to Euro 2000. The tabloids demanded that something be done; they always do. In such circumstances, there are great scandals and tabloid headlines; dogs bark, priests pray and politicians legislate. The statute book is littered with such legislation—for example, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which has already been mentioned. We were told that if we opposed it, we were in favour of young children having their faces mutilated by dogs.
After the well-publicised, tragic death of a young woman from drugs, the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997 was passed. It was meant to achieve three objectives: to change the licensing of clubs in which drugs might be used; to alter the conditions of the licences and close specific clubs, and to persuade local authorities to change their licensing system. Nothing has resulted from that Act.
Horror comics were banned from being imported to this country in 1955. There was a Bill to control the windows of sex shops. There is a long list of legislation that has come to the House because of a demand from the press. Politicians have prostituted their office and this institution by not legislating in the right way, and by throwing away opportunities and wasting time on measures such as this Bill in order to seek popularity.
I gave advice, as I always do, to my party. I suggested 18 months ago that Ministers should stop taking the tabloids. Sadly, that has not happened. We have evidence that the leaders of our country, like the leaders in the previous Government, need to be hooked to a drip-feed of daily admiration from the press. If they do not get it, they become nervous and fretful. We should be in touch with the public mood, but not with the lowest common denominator of racism and hatred of other nations. We should be in touch with the public's best instincts.
The Bill is the result of a misreading of the events of Euro 2000. We have heard a great deal about Charleroi and Brussels, but nothing about Eindhoven. The essence of what happened can be distilled in the difference between the approach of two police forces—between intelligent, subtle policing and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Drugs."] I do not need to mention that. I am talking about the difference between intelligent, subtle policing and crude, tough policing. It resembles the difference between reaction in this country to the miners strike and the current farmers demonstrations.
Farmers are taking similar actions to those of the miners during their strike: blocking roads, breaking the law and committing acts of vandalism. As far as I know there have been no arrests and no court cases involving farmers. However, the miners were imprisoned, some for a long time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Flynn: I am making the point that the Bill is based on events surrounding three football matches. If Euro 2000 had not taken place, we would not be here now.
In Brussels, the police prepared for confrontation. They turned up in riot gear, they had water cannon and they allowed the sale of double-strength beer. Inevitably, confrontation occurred. It was an example of the stupid, tabloid, tough reaction that won great praise from the Belgian press and the press in this country. The Dutch police turned up in informal clothing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was trying to bring the hon. Gentleman back into line and back to the allocation of time motion. However, he is still straying wide of the mark. I should be grateful if he would now refer directly to the motion.

Mr. Flynn: We are considering whether to allocate time to a Bill, the fundamental basis of which has not been established today or last week. There is no basis for the Bill because the problem is not about this country but about the way in which matters were handled by the Dutch police, who dealt with the same football crowd when England lost its matches. There was no riot or bad behaviour by the English fans against whom we are trying to introduce changes in the law. The Dutch police handled matters intelligently and subtly. If we tried to tackle the problem by influencing the police in the foreign countries to which our fans travel, we would get a result. In Eindhoven, the police described the fans' reaction to an English defeat as mild disappointment and polite applause.
This is bad legislation which will not help Parliament in any way. Neither this Bill nor any other should be introduced to satisfy the demands of the tabloid press.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke good and true about how the House should legislate. In fact, the cheerful cynicism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) lies behind the Government's position on these matters. The Home Secretary referred to a time when 17 Bills were guillotined, but 37 Bills have been guillotined during this Parliament alone and 20 have not been agreed between the Front Benches. That shows the scale of the problem that has confronted our legislative process, but the Government still go ahead despite the concerns that have been rightly expressed by my hon. Friends, as well as by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
We now have the most exclusive new Labour Government conceivable. They are so exclusive that they do not want to involve the wider public in the legislative process. Those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches have rightly implied that the legislative process should not be exclusive. We must reach out and test whether the Bill receives the public's consent or merely their acquiesence. By tabling the motion, the Government are bypassing the processes of Parliament.
Opposition to a measure should be exhaustive, because in such debates, we test whether legislation can be borne. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke good and true, because how can we involve anyone in the debate on Report? Second Reading finished shortly before 1 am on Friday and the House did not sit on Friday, yet a Committee of the whole House will soon consider the Bill. What outside representative could weigh up any amendment that has been tabled? It is difficult for hon. Members on both sides of the House to try to collate amendments and ensure that they are in order and to consider whether the allocation of time motion allows adequate time for debate.
I was genuinely surprised to see a guillotine motion on the Order Paper. Nothing in Thursday's debate suggested that the usual grounds for expediting legislation existed. Reasoned arguments were put forward, but the speeches were not long; perhaps the most loquacious was the fine speech of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). However, there was no will to impede the process of government by delay—by argument, yes, because this is clearly a contentious Bill that touches on civil liberties, our self-respect and that for our fellow citizens.
I refer again to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich because there were truths in the essence of her speech. None of us approves of thuggery or intimidatory conduct, but the House should be allowed to take time to weigh up how legislation impacts on freedom, arrest, detention and magistrates courts.
The Home Secretary tried to anticipate the debate by stating which amendments he would accept. I have no doubt there will be joy in certain sections of the House, but who has had the opportunity to lobby and to reflect on the Bill? How can we reflect on it between Committee, Report and Third Reading? There was no need for the guillotine. I genuinely believe that the business would have probably been disposed of in a much shorter period than the time limit proposed. We can now only make a stab at what is appropriate.
The Government have used 37 guillotines in slightly more than three years. A Government guillotine is, in essence, a denial of freedom of speech; it simply stops Members speaking. Time and again, the Government have said that there is an imperative to table a guillotine motion, but why should a Bill stand if reasoned opposition to it cannot be exhausted? Our processes depend on allowing those who do not agree with the majority sentiment to express opposition, but guillotines are a way to inhibit the expression of opposition to what will become criminal law.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has not been prevented from contributing, nor was he prevented from contributing on Second Reading, and I doubt whether any Member interested in debating the Bill will be prevented from having his or her say. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wondered how 652 Members will be able to get involved in debates in Committee. Oh that 652 Members were interested in getting involved! I suspect that the same Members will be involved in Committee and on Report and very much doubt whether any others will come to the Chamber, so there will be a continuum in the process.
I have opposed and supported guillotine motions. Like most Members, I trust, one exercises judgment as to what is appropriate. I find it distressing that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and I are on opposing sides. However, I want to address a couple of points made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the prevention of terrorism Acts. If a Bill came to the House cold and we were asked to act immediately, that could be described as a knee-jerk reaction, to use that horrible expression, but so far as I can see the Bill is almost incremental. It is not as though the issue has not been discussed in the House on various occasions and at great length.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but if the Bill is simply incremental as he says, it would not have been necessary for the Home Secretary to take note of the points made by Members of the other place and various groups outside. I am afraid that the Bill contains the kernel of a civil rights problem.

Mr. Banks: I can understand the controversy over the Bill, but it is up to us to exercise our judgment as to how we can best address the problems. We cannot always complain about having to consider legislation to a time scale briefer than the norm. It must be possible to exercise judgment over a brief period, as it must possible to do so over an extended period. There are problems, but that is what the process is all about.
I described the Bill as incremental to show that the issue has not just hit us smack in the face, like the problems with dangerous dogs or issues surrounding the prevention of terrorism Acts. For example, there was a sudden, calamitous experience in Birmingham and an immediate rush to do something. Such legislation worries me far more than the Bill. The Football Spectators


Act 1989 was amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, which was promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is right: we would not be discussing the Bill but for the events at Euro 2000. As I understand it, the Government thought that existing legislation was adequate to deal with the problem, but clearly it was not. It was thought that the 1989 Act was adequate, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford still introduced the 1999 Act. At times, one has to keep fine tuning legislation, and I believe that the Bill has been introduced in that spirit, although I accept that it is highly controversial.

Mr. Gale: I have a modicum of sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is deploying, but what is not incremental—indeed, it is a new circumstance—is that the Bill is being considered following the introduction of devolved powers to Scotland and Northern Ireland. So far as I can see, no discussions have taken place and no legislation is being introduced in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to support the Bill. There is a gaping hole below the Bill's waterline, which is why it must be delayed. All the powers must be properly co-ordinated

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and my right hon. Friend must deal with that issue. There is clearly a loophole, but at least we know about it, so we must find a way of closing it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has discussed this matter with whoever passes for his equivalent in the Scottish Parliament, but it must clearly be addressed. The problems of devolution are now revealing themselves, but we must handle them—devolution was a decision of the House, so we must deal with its implications. This will not be the only time that a problem will arise.
I hope that my hon. Friends are prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's statement and the way in which he proposes to enact this legislation. Some say that we should not worry because it is only a football match between England and France. I do not see many hon. Members in the Chamber who are noted for their devotion to our beautiful game of football or who are regular attenders. I shall not tempt fate by asking everyone who regularly supports a football club to stand up, but I know the hon. Members present well enough to know that not many of them are fully conversant with football or the ways of football hooligans. That will come out in due course.
It is not just a matter of the France versus England match: Intertoto matches are taking place now, and the UEFA cup and the Champions league will start in September. They are not matches that usually give rise to the problems that we saw in Charleroi or Brussels because they involve our clubs, but it is imperative to have a timetable, and that requires us to support the Secretary of State. I trust that my hon. Friends, including that excellent parliamentarian, my good and trusted hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, will support our right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this issue affects not only people who love football,

but anyone who passes through any of our ports, who could be detained even though they have no interest in football and no intention of going near a football ground?

Mr. Banks: I find it difficult to understand that point. This legislation will apply when football matches are in the offing. I cannot believe that people who are stopped but who clearly have no interest in or knowledge of football will be caught up in this. I do not want to fall foul of Mr. Deputy Speaker's strictures to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West about the principle of the Bill, but I should point out that it contains safeguards that, in my opinion and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, would prevent that from happening. I am satisfied that we can discuss those provisions during Committee stage, but for the moment I give my right hon. Friend my full support on the timetable motion.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I reject the notion that those of us who are regular attenders at football matches should hold our peace in this debate. I am an occasional attender of matches in the Highland league, but they have not caused the problems that we are dealing with today.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) raised a point about Scotland that is of considerable importance. The House should not legislate in vain on anything, and there is such a major loophole in the Bill that it would be prudent at least to ascertain the view of the Scottish Executive on the merits of the Bill before proceeding to enact it.
I have a major concern about the timetable motion. I am not opposed to programming of legislation by agreement, subject to there being adequate time for external consultation. That view was recommended by the Hansard Society during consideration of the reform of the legislative process—I was a member and it was chaired by Geoffrey Rippon—and it seemed to me to make sense.
There is no such provision proposed in the allocation of time motion. We have heard from the Home Secretary an indication that his mind has moved on the issue since he last addressed the House. We have not had any opportunity to discuss with those who might have a direct interest in seeking to enforce the Bill what their view is of how the Secretary of State's mind has moved. It is not satisfactory to take that movement as the end of the story.

Mr. Burns: The Home Secretary can confirm that one of the more controversial proposals in the Bill—namely, the proposal to take passports away from unconvicted football hooligans—was published by the Government, with a series of other proposals on football hooligans, in March last year and went out to a full consultative process, to which the Government received responses. When I proposed a similar idea two months later, there was further consultation, in that a number of other organisations wrote to me and to the Government on it. To say that there has been no opportunity for consultation or to get outside views on that controversial issue is factually incorrect

Mr. Maclennan: I made no suggestion that the matter was factually different from what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, a number of matters are being considered


as a result of the Home Secretary's mind moving. One of the most important innovations is in respect of detention, which goes to the heart of our civil liberties. Here I wholeheartedly endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose wise words ought to be listened to by the House on this and many another occasion.
This is one of those issues that shows it is wrong to rush legislation. The kind of urgency that has been suggested by the Home Secretary and the Government stems from the existence of a possible difficulty because of a possible breakdown in policing or some possible determined hooliganism on a particular occasion in the future. That is a classic statement of the circumstances in which it is wrong to legislate. We do not legislate for an occasion in this place, but with the intention that what we do should have a lasting and beneficial effect and should change practices and behaviour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that the changes or development in the Home Secretary's thinking were due to the original Bill being either bad law or bad drafting, or possibly both. If by bad law he meant bad policy, that is where I think the fault lies.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that we should make up our minds and reach a judgment quickly. Candidly, he has been applying his mind to this issue for a long time and no doubt his mind is settled on it. He could scarcely have done the job that he has done for as long as he has and come to the debate without a clear view. However, he is in a different position from many hon. Members: I would venture to say, most hon. Members. When measures are proposed seriously restricting our civil liberties, it is right that we should consult, and consult the law enforcers in particular. When there is evidence of unease—as has been expressed in the last three days—it is wrong to act in the way that is proposed.
By running the Committee and Report stages into one, although it may be possible to deal with points raised in Committee through manuscript amendments on Report, we put the Chair in an extremely difficult position. There are inadequate opportunities to consider the merits of manuscript amendments. We might table nonsensical amendments because of the difficulty of drafting under the likely circumstances. It is not an appropriate way for us to proceed.
I considered seeking your advice on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is perfectly possible that matters will be raised in Committee that give rise to ways of proceeding. It would be invidious, however, to spring such an inquiry on you at this stage, although I am aware that there are precedents.
A clear gap of 24 hours—of one whole day's sitting—should be allowed between Committee and Report stages. That would not defeat the Government's purpose of enabling the Bill to go to another place and return here before the summer recess, but even if it did frustrate our intention to complete our deliberations before then, we should greet that with irritation but accept that it is our duty to return to consider the Bill appropriately.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Either the Bill—or something very similar to it—will be enacted this side of the recess, to enable matches played in the autumn and

early parts of the winter to be covered by it, or we will delay, and allow the matches to take place under earlier legislation.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has outed himself as a Highland league fan. That is no bad thing, as it was a Highland league team, Inverness Caledonian Thistle, that destroyed my team and its manager's career this year. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the legislation will go through, and it is simply a matter of timing. We should act as promptly as possible, to enable good, but tougher, legislation to be in force when the games to which I have referred take place.
We are not in an ideal situation; Ministers may want to expand on that later. Ideally, there would be prolonged gaps and further consultation. Ideally, we would not be having this debate at all, because we would not have such a massive problem of football hooliganism. With that caveat, we must discuss and develop the arguments on how to get effective legislation on the statute book in time for all the games mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), as well as Intertoto, European Champions league and UEFA matches, and the friendly between Manchester United and Galatasaray, which could cause problems.
The Bill is not the enormous attack on civil liberties that has been suggested. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends said that what is at stake is the denial to individuals of the right to travel abroad to attend a football match that they will be able to watch at home. That does not constitute the enormous attack on individual civil liberties that some people have identified this evening.
The difference between Scotland and England and Wales is also not a reason for delaying the legislation. The Bill will apply to England and Wales, and the Scottish Parliament may discuss its own legislation. To delay legislation in this House simply so that a devolved Parliament can decide to enact its own legislation when it returns from recess would not close a loophole. Indeed, it would create an enormous open door. It misses the point to argue against legislation covering England and Wales timeously to prevent a small number of people from leaving the country on the basis that they could leave from Scotland.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To be fair to the debate, nobody—apart from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—has argued that we should not have legislation in place by the summer holiday. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and that there will be a later issue for Scotland and, possibly, for Northern Ireland. However, he should recognise that we are all saying that we should have legislation, but that it should be reasonable and as watertight as possible.

Mr. Murphy: I do not know what happens in Bermondsey in the next couple of months, but in my area we will have a recess rather than a holiday. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, this House and the other place do not have the legislative responsibility to do anything in respect of the loophole in Scotland, which is entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Even if we decided to delay legislation, there is no guarantee that the Scottish Parliament would decide to do anything.
The argument has been made that we should delay so that we may consult public opinion, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has already identified


the fact that similar legislation was mooted more than a year ago. I said on Second Reading that I had written to every English and Scottish premiership club two years ago and several of them suggested measures similar to those in the Bill and in some of the amendments. On those grounds, it is important that we have legislation in place in advance of the recess that will deal with many of the problems that have been identified.
Right hon. and hon. Members have warned of the consequences if we pass legislation that is not as good as it could be in the understandable desire to have something in place, be that because of the necessity for the Government to compromise with Opposition Front Benchers or as a consequence of amendment in the other place. It is essential that we have legislation in place specifically on the passport issue and on the connection between convictions for violence and the inability to travel abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) confessed an affection for Newport AFC, but I suspect that he is not worried about foreign travel, because his team is many decades from travelling outside England and parts of Wales. His point was that we should not pass legislation on a whim or as a knee-jerk reaction, but the Bill is nothing of the sort. The problem has existed for more than 20 years and various Governments have tried their best to deal with it. To say that the problem comes down to what type of beer was being sold in Holland or Belgium—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying well wide of the timetable motion. I would be grateful if he brought his remarks back to the motion before the House.

Mr. Murphy: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just responding to the points made by my hon. Friend which you correctly ruled out of order earlier. If we do not pass meaningful and effective legislation this side of the recess, this House and this country will be blamed for continuing to export our violence when we had an opportunity to pass the legislation that would prevent it.

Mr. Peter Lilley: With the exceptions of the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I have agreed with all speakers from all parties who have so far contributed to the debate and responded to the Home Secretary. That is as it should be, as it is the function of hon. Members to uphold the liberties of subjects. So far as I know, no hon. Member was elected on a manifesto of restricting people's liberties, or of restricting opportunities to debate changes to those liberties.
I agree especially with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I have a certain respect for the Home Secretary, as does the hon. Lady. I see him as a Jekyll and Hyde character, and I respect the good, Dr. Jekyll side of his character that shows respect for parliamentary traditions and freedoms. I am therefore grateful to him for the small mercies that he has shown the House today in accepting the Opposition amendments to the motion and extending debate beyond the ludicrously short time originally planned.
However, I am afraid that the other side to the Home Secretary's nature is a desire to appear tougher than tough, and more brutal than brutal. That side of his character panders to the Prime Minister's requirement that tough-sounding measures be produced, however shoddy they may be.
Earlier, Madam Speaker pointed out to the Home Secretary that, during the debate on the guillotine motion, he could not discuss the substance of the Bill. I take it that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow the House to discuss the question of timing during the Committee stage. That is why I wish now to discuss the issue of the timing of the debate on this Bill.
Despite the concession that the Home Secretary has made, major questions remain about the amount of time devoted to consideration of the Bill, and how it is allocated. First of all, there is no real urgency about the measure. Football matches have been held over the past few months, and there will be another one in September. It is, I believe, only a friendly match that does not matter very much. If the Home Secretary thinks that that match is so crucial that the Bill must be on the statute book before it takes place, he has the option of asking the football authorities to delay it until a later date.
Alternatively, he could arrange for the start of the recess to be delayed. That would allow the House to consider the Bill fully—if we were not able to do so before the end of July, in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out. There is therefore no real urgency about the matter. The Bill was pushed forward so that the Government could show that they had initiated legislation before the 2006 world cup decision was taken.
The Library has produced a useful brief on this matter, and it shows that football hooliganism is not a recent phenomenon. Governments have been legislating about it since the 14th century. It seems a bit foolish to contend that it is crucial that this Bill be rushed through before the end of July in the year 2000, given that we have spent 600 years not getting the matter right.
Above all, before today's Committee stage, there has not been enough time properly to table amendments to the Bill, whose Second Reading debate began last Thursday and ended in the early hours of Friday. Friday was a non-sitting day, and most hon. Members did not realise that amendments could be tabled then. When I tried to table amendments this morning, I was told that handwritten amendments would be frowned on, as there were already starred amendments for consideration. However, I gather that that did not stop the Government putting down further handwritten amendments. I gather that they have not been able to put down sufficient amendments for the Committee stage and have had to put down amendments for the Report stage before the Committee's consideration has been completed—or am I mistaken about that?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question. However, my understanding is that not only were the Government amendments put down on Friday, but they were put down towards the end of the time permitted because when we tabled our amendments, there was no sign of them. Therefore, any chance of trying to take that into account was effectively foreclosed.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear.
Normally, we consider the principles of a Bill on Second Reading, after which we go back to our constituencies and discuss it with our constituents, professional organisations and interested parties. We can then put down amendments, often with detailed help and advice from the interested parties, so that the measure can be improved when it is considered in Committee. None of us has had the opportunity to do that. The only organisations that we could consult were those which work over the weekend, of which there were not a great many. However, in my constituency I was able to talk to doctors, neighbours, and people at church and in the pub. When I told them what was proposed, they all had grave reservations, but none had written amendments handy for me to submit this morning.
The initial motion in the name of the Home Secretary, which would have allowed but a few hours' debate—seven in total, including that on the guillotine motion—was manifestly insufficient and rather sinister in trying to concertina the whole process into such a short time. In addition, most of the debate will take place during the night. That does not worry me—I am quite happy to spend all night discussing this legislation to make sure that we get a better Bill than the one the Government have submitted. However, the timing is intentional, so that the Government get as little coverage as possible in the press for what they know to be a shoddy and dangerous Bill. That is why they are trying to get the debate over with quickly and during the hours of darkness. [Interruption.] Yes, there is something of the night about the Home Secretary's proposals, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) says. [Interruption.] It may well be a qualification for Home Secretaries, but that is only the current political fashion.
I believe that the Bill raises many important issues. We need to examine them in Committee by putting down amendments to test whether those issues have been catered for by the Bill's wording and, if not, to amend the wording to ensure that they are properly covered. First, is the Bill reconcilable with the human rights provisions that the Government introduced? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), a former Attorney-General, says that it is not compatible with the human rights legislation, and he is a powerful and persuasive figure. The Government, however, say that the Bill does not conflict with the human rights provisions of the Council of Europe. If it is not incompatible with those provisions, it shows what an inadequate defence of our human rights these foreign provisions are. I have always maintained that. We in this place should be the principal defenders of our rights, regardless of whether the measures that we introduce are compatible with the European convention on human rights, which we have signed elsewhere.
The Bill raises many issues about the traditional rights of the English man and woman and the Welsh man and woman who are primarily affected by it. Does the Bill conflict with the presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty, or does it not? We need to examine that and test it with appropriate amendments. Is it right to detain people simply to seek evidence of whether they may have indulged in some behaviour that might indicate that they would, at a future date, commit an offence, which would not be a criminal offence in this, or any other, country? We need time to consider all that.
Indeed, we must ask whether we should legislate at all to punish people for something that may not be a crime in this country or any other. We need time to consider that question. Should we punish people by withdrawing their passports on the basis of procedures that do not require criminal standards of proof, but only civil standards? Is the Bill compatible with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? The Home Secretary said that he would introduce amendments to help to achieve compatibility, but we need to make absolutely sure of that. That is a major issue, and it cannot be resolved in just a few moments.
Once the House has heard the full list of issues that we must consider, it will realise that each of them will receive short shrift, even under the extended timetable that we are being permitted. There are questions of extraterritoriality. Should the House try to legislate to maintain peace and order in other jurisdictions? Surely that is primarily the duty of the Governments concerned. Should we place greater restrictions on the liberties of British subjects than we do to maintain domestic peace in order that peace may be maintained in France, Belgium, Germany and other places?
Does the Bill conflict with freedom of movement in the European Union? Freedom of movement is one of the aspects of the European treaties that I most support, but we appear to be restricting it. We need time to debate these matters and to test them by amendment, so that we may judge whether the Bill is incompatible with freedom of movement in the EU. If it is not, several people have said that restrictions of the kind proposed could be achieved only by the introduction of identity cards. I oppose that, but it may logically be compatible with the Bill and necessary as a result of it. The Government, who seem to be having second, third, fourth and fifth thoughts about the Bill, may want to move further in that damaging direction, and we should debate the point.
Is there a retrospective element to the Bill? Are we applying punishment to people who were previously found guilty under terms and conditions that did not include those punishments? Is there not a degree of double jeopardy in that respect? I understand that the German Government refused to participate in the administrative arrangements that we put in place to try to prevent the problems that occurred at Charleroi, because they believed that even those arrangements conflicted with the provisions in the German constitution preventing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to link all his different points to the amendment before us, but I am not sure that he has always succeeded.

Mr. Lilley: I am endeavouring to show that important issues before us require time for discussion and that the Government have not allowed for that time in their allocation of time motion. I do not intend to delay the House artificially; I merely want to put on the record how serious, important and numerous those issues are.
There are questions of discrimination against a particular group—football fans. We should remember that football fans, not football hooligans, will be impinged on by the Bill. Should it be restricted only to that group, or extended to fans of other sports? Should it include people wishing to travel abroad to take part in demonstrations


that might be rowdy and at which they might be aggressive? Should it include people who wish to go abroad to participate in other illegal activities, such as taking drugs in Ibiza, where, we learn, many British behave in a deplorable manner? Those people would certainly arouse the wrath of the hon. Member for West Ham, who hates to see any British person travel abroad for illegal reasons and bringing the fair name of England into disrepute.
We must go through the measure line by line and word by word.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The right hon. Gentleman mentions a range of issues that, as you pointed out earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be dealt with in Committee and on Report. Will he confirm that he intends, whatever the circumstances, to vote against the measure on Third Reading?

Mr. Lilley: No, I cannot confirm that. I did not vote against the measure on Second Reading, because, stretching my credulity and my willingness to compromise with the Government to their limits, I had hoped that the Government might remove both the uncertainties and the offensive aspects of the Bill so that it became comparatively harmless and was restricted to the two or three provisions that, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, were not especially controversial.
Above all, we must consider the measure line by line and word by word to ensure that it is not an unworkable, shoddy, spin doctor's stunt. From this morning's newspapers, we know that the Prime Minister sent out an edict to his Ministers, stating that:
On crime, we need to highlight tough measures…We should think now of an initiative…Something tough, with immediate bite which sends a message through the system.
The Bill shows all the symptoms of being a response to that plea from the Prime Minister to send out tough messages. Of course, when he was in opposition, he had a wonderful slogan: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." That always seemed inadequate, because it missed out the words, "tough on criminals".
The Bill, however, would be tough on the innocent and tough on suspects—people who look as though they might be racist thugs and hooligans, but might turn out to be Members of Parliament in mufti. We need to consider such matters seriously and at greater length—with the opportunity to consult people outside the House—before the measure is passed into law.
We need to ensure that we rub the faces of the Government's Back-Bench supporters in the measure. That is how we shall ultimately achieve change in this place. The Government have a massive and overwhelming majority. They can steamroller the guillotine motion and the Bill through the House. However, if, before doing so, their Back Benchers have to spend so much time considering the measure that they are unable to obscure from their consciousness how contrary it is to their beliefs, they will get hold of the Home Secretary in the Lobby, as we vote on successive amendments, and say to him, "Heavens above Jack, Dr. Jekyll—whatever your name is—please alter this. Haven't you made a mistake? Give more time for consideration. Defer until the autumn".
If they did so, perhaps the measure would be made compatible with the principles that I believe a majority of Labour Members share with me, but with which the Bill is at present incompatible. If we support the allocation of time motion, we shall have insufficient time to ensure that the Bill is fit for the House to pass.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in the debate, because in the past the city of Portsmouth has suffered considerable hooliganism, sadly associated with our team. That hooliganism was taken around the country, much to the discredit of the city. I am glad to say that there have been improvements and there is little or no trouble either at Fratton Park or at away games.
It is not unreasonable for people to expect the Government to react to the events that we saw over the summer. However, games that are about to take place have been cited as the reason for doing so—especially the one between Manchester United and Galatasaray. If the Football Association is really interested in doing something about the matter, and bearing in mind that it asked Manchester United to play in Brazil, it should ask the team, in the national interest, not to play a friendly match against Galatasaray in Belgium. That would be a major step.
We should remember that the two Leeds supporters who were killed in Istanbul were innocent, committed, long-term football supporters. They had travelled with their team on many occasions. They went to watch a football match, but were killed—innocent bystanders of events that overtook them. Whatever laws we pass, the innocent football supporter will always be caught up in the turmoil of hooliganism, when emotions run away with people.
When the measure received its Second Reading last Thursday, we all wanted the time for debate to be unfettered. As hon. Members have pointed out, the debate was successfully concluded. Everyone who wanted to speak was able to do so and there was no dissension as to the way in which our democratic processes had worked.
We then found out that the Government were intending to deal with the Bill's remaining stages in seven hours. That is a ludicrous proposal and we had to object to it. If it had been accepted, several Labour Back Benchers would have supported it only reluctantly. However, what have the Government conceded? They have agreed only to lengthen the proceedings—they have not allowed the reflection time that was essential between Committee and Third Reading, so that there would be a day or so between them.
We could fall in line with the other place by making a decision tonight—even at this late stage—to reconsider the timetable. We could take the Committee stage until midnight or, if necessary, until 5 am. The House could then adjourn business on the measure until after 10 pm on Wednesday. The House and the outside world would thus have a chance to reflect on it.
When the Home Secretary opened the debate, he said that over the weekend he had considered what had been said on Second Reading and the representations put to him by the Conservative Front-Bench team through the usual channels. I am sure that he also took into account what the outside world was telling him—either through


his noble Friends or through Labour Back Benchers. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to listen and the Bill is dramatically different. Even that small period made the Home4Secretary see the sense of allowing a break.
Common sense should prevail. The shadow Leader of the House explained why the Opposition had tabled their amendments, but why must the procedure be so complicated? Surely, it would be simpler for the Home Secretary and the Government to realise that it would make sense not to pass a Bill about which there will be grave reservations and in which people will try to find loopholes. Even before the measure leaves this place, lawyers will be relishing the opportunity to take on the Government and the state by defending people who will be caught up by it.
We do not need a Bill that will end in tears. We need a measure that delivers what most reasonable people want: justice and dignity for the nation as a whole and the preservation of the liberties of the individual. The legislation should not interfere with those liberties unnecessarily. That is what we expect. Unfortunately, the time we are offered for debate this evening and early tomorrow will not provide an opportunity to fulfil that expectation.
The Home Secretary enthuses about being tough; but if, in being so, he opens a hornets' nest that will lead to widespread disappointment, that cannot be right. He has had to admit that he thought the Government had enough powers to deal with the problems over the summer. How wrong he was. He should learn from that mistake and listen to what is being said by hon. Members who do not want to stop the Bill, but want it passed in a form that delivers what reasonable people want: justice administered fairly, with no pressure on individual policemen to do more than should be expected of them.
A match takes place in Paris in a few months' time. Ten to 12 ferries leave Portsmouth every day. Sometimes, thousands of people go through the passenger terminal, but who will vet them all to ensure that the undesirable element that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and I do not want to travel to football matches does not get through?
We need a Bill that will deliver what we want. We need time to reflect on its current provisions, the provisions that will be in it at 12 o'clock, and on where we shall be at 5 o'clock on Tuesday when the Bill travels the short distance down the Corridor to the other place. If it goes out of this place in good shape, it stands less chance of being amended in the other place and of creating further difficulties for us the following week.
I hope that the Home Secretary has listened to this constructive debate. Unlike many debates on guillotine motions, hon. Members have not only expressed their anger at the guillotine, but have made constructive comments on how to improve a Government Bill that none of us wants to vote against.

Mr. David Davis: I agree with almost everyone who has spoken in the debate, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). He lobbied me in the past when I was a Foreign Office Minister on the civil and civic rights of people in many other countries, so he surprised me when he said that, if we were not football fans, we might not understand the problem.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. I presume that he is right to say it is necessary for the Bill to become law before the summer recess. I cannot judge accurately the seriousness of the possible hooliganism that might follow the matches that are held abroad, so I shall take it as read that the Bill must become law by the beginning of August. However, even if we accept that assumption, we are involved in a hazardous parliamentary process.
There are good reasons for the structure of Second Reading and then a pause, Committee stage and then a pause and then the final stages of a Bill before it goes to the Lords. That is the only way that the House generates decent legislation. On every other occasion when we have not followed that procedure, we have ended up with bad legislation. Even when we follow that procedure and there is insufficient argument about the issues, we sometimes end up with bad legislation.
The Bill and the amendments demonstrate my argument. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), who is a former Attorney-General, and I tabled amendments Nos. 28 and 29. In their amendments, the Government have accepted amendment No. 29 and substantively accepted amendment No. 28, but our amendments were tabled at the last minute—on Thursday evening, because the House did not sit on Friday—after relatively short consideration of the Bill. That the amendments were necessary was fairly obvious at that point; so much so that the Government probably agreed to accept them because, if they did not, the Bill would be illegal under the European convention on human rights. On that basis, the Bill was badly flawed even at first sight and who is to know what would have become apparent between Committee and Report?
The fact that there is no gap between the Committee and Report stages is what aggrieves me most about the process suggested for the debate. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) told us that it would be possible to create a timetable for the Bill so that its Report stage would be taken on Wednesday. That would still allow the Lords sufficient time to complete its consideration of the Bill and send it back to us before the summer. That is the only intelligent way to consider the Bill. If we do not take that approach, flaws will undoubtedly remain in it.
The Bill is designed not just for the summer, but for the foreseeable future. It will be the basis on which the courts deliver law and it will impinge fiercely on the civil rights of individuals—not just football hooligans but all football fans and probably all those who travel on the day of international football matches. All of us—whether we are football fans or not—represent people in that latter category. Therefore, it is our duty—not just our right—to make the points that we have made today.
Although I tried to table a manuscript amendment to break consideration of the Bill into two parts so that we could debate it today and on Wednesday, that was unfortunately not possible under the procedures of the House. That is a tragedy, in my judgment. It will lead to the Bill having a harder time in the Lords and it may lead to its being greatly flawed when it becomes law.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I have listened to much of the debate this evening and on Second Reading and I am persuaded that the case for the Bill is not made. Certainly the case for proceeding with the indecent haste that the Government propose is not made.
The problems stem from the failure of law enforcement authorities to invoke existing powers. Doubts must have been created in the minds of those Members of Parliament who listened to the "Today" programme this morning and heard the father of the only football fan who was charged as a result of the scenes in Charleroi. Scores of arrests were made, but only one person was charged and the manner in which that was done appears to have been unsatisfactory. The proposed new law is unnecessary because existing law is not being invoked. We are in danger of doing the wrong thing—albeit for the right reasons—because of the indecent haste with which we are proceeding with the Bill.
We are in danger of legislating for one specific event in September because of the unacceptable behaviour of a very small minority. However, as has been pointed out, we have a duty and a responsibility to legislate for everyone in our society and in a way that does not prejudice the civil liberties of the majority. Any law that is made without the arguments for and against it being properly tested in debate risks becoming bad law.
Hon. Members have made the point that it is important to listen to a wide range of views. Parliament does not have the monopoly of wisdom on such subjects. Although Parliament has listened with great interest to those Members who have a specific interest in football and have knowledge of the problems occasioned by soccer hooliganism, many Members do not have such knowledge. Therefore it is wrong for us to proceed at break-neck speed without having time to consider the other views that might have been fed into the debate had it not been timetabled in such an unsatisfactory fashion. Given the fundamental civil liberty issues that are at stake, truncating the debate in the manner suggested by the Government is ill advised and offends against the finer traditions of law making in this Parliament.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief, but I want to associate myself with what has been said by almost everyone on both sides of the House. In particular, I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who made a catalogue of points that all deserve serious consideration.
I do not want to sound churlish because I am grateful to the Home Secretary for accepting the substance of the two amendments that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) tabled. As my right hon. Friend said, they were tabled late at night, and many more amendments need to be tabled.
I strongly support the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who said that the proposal is a sticking-plaster palliative and that it would be much better to have the Report stage after 10 pm on Wednesday, rather than after midnight tonight, as at least that would provide two more days for some kind of reflection. It is quite wrong that a Bill that delves deep and make a major attack on the civil liberties of people in this country should be rushed through in this way. We have already

said that it is not necessary, as there have been eight pieces of legislation on football matters since 1980, and a friendly match with France in September is no justification for rushing in this way.
I shall briefly highlight the important points. The Home Secretary has already acknowledged one human rights error by accepting our amendments. However, the Bill contains another human rights error as, under schedule 1, proposed new section 21C(1) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 makes the measures applicable only to citizens of this country, which directly contradicts article 14 of the ECHR, under which such action is discriminatory. If the Home Office cannot get such matters right and, as is his statutory duty, the Home Secretary states on the front of the Bill that, under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in his view
the provisions of the Football (Disorder) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights,
within a few days he will be demonstrated to be wrong on one occasion and, I believe, wrong on a second. I say that with deep respect for the Home Office lawyers who are advising the Home Secretary, many of whom I know personally and who are of a high calibre. However, if they can get it wrong when advising the Home Secretary, as we must presume, and the Home Secretary is wrong about fundamental human rights, about which the Government have made such a song and dance about introducing, the need for close scrutiny is strongly demonstrated.
I shall say a quick word about extraterritoriality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden tabled an amendment with which I have a good deal of sympathy, as it proposes that a criminal action that takes place abroad but is not dealt with there could be dealt with here. However, before we breach that dam, big issues are raised.
Let us suppose that one is seen on videotape in a crowd that is milling around and clearly taking part in public disorder. If one is in such a crowd, one is likely to be contributing to disorder, whether or not one wishes to. However, one's opportunity to defend oneself may be extremely limited. Consequently, I am hesitant about supporting a measure which, if we can get the wording right, might be sensible.
I have made the few points that I need to make immediately, and which add up to the fact that the rush on the Bill will cause us to regret at leisure what we have done in haste.

Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to the debate.
I recognise that those who have consistently opposed guillotine motions while supporting their party in government as well as in opposition have strong moral authority for what they have said today. Of those members of the official Opposition who have spoken against the guillotine, the only person in that position is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who, throughout the period in which he was a Government Back Bencher, honourably opposed Government guillotines. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rashly spoke about Jekyll and Hyde and people saying one thing and doing another, I must point


out that what I said about the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills does not apply to him, the right hon. Member for, famously, Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House.
Those Members, when Ministers or Back Benchers in the previous Government, all voted for guillotine motions, including that on the Football Spectators Act 1989 which was debated exactly 11 years ago today. I have refreshed my memory on that debate but, for those right hon. and hon. Members who have not, the case for guillotining that Bill was much less urgent than the case for guillotining the Bill today.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman voted against the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I voted against it. There is something synthetic about the lather worked up by most Members on guillotine motions, although I except those such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills who have a principled position that they maintain through thick and thin.
I shall cherish the reply of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst who is on the record as saying that he always opposed guillotines. When I put to him the fact that "always" was subject to Clintonesque qualification and that he voted in favour of the guillotine on the Football Spectators Act, he explained that he was in government then. The right hon. Gentleman had a strong principle against guillotines, but another principle collided with that, namely the principle that he wished to carry on collecting the Queen's shilling as a Minister.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the Home Secretary to be terribly specific and, instead of making a general defence of guillotine motions, address himself specifically to this guillotine motion? Will he tell us what circumstance makes the curtailment of debate necessary, when he received all the necessary assurances and when there was not a single indication on Second Reading to suggest that there would be any undue delay? Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) took up precisely five minutes of Second Reading. No previous indication was given in any business statement that there was going to be a guillotine. What is the justification for this guillotine?

Mr. Straw: The justification is straightforward, as the right hon. Lady knows. The record of the Conservative Opposition is that, whatever they say, they cannot deliver undertakings that they make to the House. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire implicitly accepted that when he said that, in seeking an informal arrangement not bound by a guillotine motion, the Opposition were reasonably confident of delivering a timetable. We have Government business tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, and the day after that, and at this stage, especially in July, any Government must not be "reasonably confident" of having its business delivered, but certain. I remind the

right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that the shambles of the Opposition is such that, earlier this year, maverick action by her own Back Benchers meant that they shot themselves in the foot by preventing Prime Minister's questions from taking place and by causing the abandonment of two Opposition debates.
There is no point the right hon. Lady shaking her head, as that is the truth. Given the fact the Opposition can wreck their own business with that kind of maverick action, they could wreck Government business more easily still. What the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, as shadow Leader of the House, said about a communications failure treads delicately over the events that took place. I was present at some of the discussions and the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, had there been a cast-iron guarantee that the Opposition would deliver the business tonight and to which every other Member of the House was bound, we would, of course, happily have proceeded by agreement. However, having been a Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald knows only too well the imperatives on Government and the need for Government to get their business—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) shouting across the Chamber. She has had a very good innings and made an intervention.

Mr. Straw: I turn now to some of the other matters that have been raised.

Mr. Maclennan: In response to the right hon. Lady's intervention, the Home Secretary made the case for having a guillotine motion, but not for having this guillotine motion. Surely the argument is not so much about guillotines—the Government may be right to say that they must complete their business before the House rises—but about whether we should continue the debate right through tonight.

Mr. Straw: I do not believe that all legislation should be guillotined, and I recognise that the fact that most legislation is not guillotined is an important safeguard for the rights of Back Benchers, whether they are on the Government or the Opposition Benches. However, for reasons that I have already explained, I think that it is necessary to complete this business tonight so that it can go to the other place. That, I understand, is what has been agreed between the business managers.
I shall deal now with the other points raised in the debate because it is important that I sit down by 6.35 pm so that any votes can take place and the House then has a full opportunity to debate the amendments. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the interesting observation that hasty legislation was bad and that legislation on which there had been insufficient conflict also turned out to be bad. I happen to agree with him on the latter point. It would be interesting if one of the House Committees examined whether all legislation that had been put through the House with some speed has turned out to be bad legislation, although I do not think that that is the case. Governments of both parties sometimes have to pass legislation quickly. I had that duty in September 1998 in the aftermath of the Omagh


bombing, and I believe that it was appropriate to pass that legislation and that there is nothing defective about it, although people may have argued about its merits.
I am in no doubt that the legislation that is most likely to be defective is not that which has been dealt with speedily, but that on which there has been no argument. I can think of several pieces of legislation during the previous Government and earlier Governments on which there was a broad consensus, and we repented in leisure about the fact that there was no engagement about the detail in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
In this case we are proceeding with greater speed than I would wish for in a perfect world, but one of the benefits of that, not only in the process that I have sought to adopt outside the House, but inside the House, is that there is a real engagement on the key issues and, to some extent, a greater engagement than would have been the case if the Bill had proceeded at a normal pace.

Mr. David Davis: Will the Home Secretary explain exactly why he could not separate the Committee and Report stages and meet the point, made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that we could get the Bill through the Lords and back again in this Session?

Mr. Straw: That was discussed and determined by the business managers, and I understand that there was anxiety that if we did as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, there would not be enough time to have the Bill printed and sent to their Lordships' House by Thursday. If there is any change to that, I will ensure that it is put on the record later in the debate.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the legislation was always foreseeable, and that point was also made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) noted, three of the four measures in the Bill were perfectly foreseeable—so much so that they have been discussed at great length in the past. That ought to reassure the House. As the whole House has accepted, the first two measures are nothing more than a compression of the domestic and international banning orders on which there has been almost no disagreement in our debates or in earlier debates on the consultation papers.
The third measure relates to the football banning order, and here I make another observation sparked by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out, 15 months ago we published a consultation paper about a football banning order that was not exactly the same as, but similar in concept and structure to the one in the Bill. One thing that I have learned since becoming a Minister is that one can publish as many consultation documents as one likes, but it is not until there is legislation before the House that—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Everybody wakes up.

Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman says, everybody wakes up. One can try to spray on people's faces what one is proposing, but it is not until the legislation comes

before the House that people begin to wake up. None the less, if one does consult, as we did 15 months ago, people are given notice and can start putting forward their ideas. We have not suddenly thought of banning orders; the idea has been around for a long time and has been the subject of discussion for a long time.
On the fourth element, the hon. Gentleman was simply wrong to say that the legislation was foreseeable. In the abstract, one could have foreseen our taking the powers that I propose should be taken under proposed new sections 14 and 21C in schedule 1. However, in advance of the trouble in Charleroi and Brussels, it was broadly accepted and I made it clear that such powers would be disproportionate. Our judgment was that those powers were not needed because all the advice that we had received was that our existing powers were likely to prove sufficient to deal with the problem.
Circumstances have changed and, to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, if circumstances change, it is a good idea to change with them. As I argued extensively last Thursday, I have sought to make it clear that in addition to the hard core of known hooligans, against which there is pretty effective police and legislative action, we must deal with the new dimension that we saw in Charleroi and Brussels—the considerable proportion of people who turn out to have records for violence and disorder in general but not for football-related violence and disorder. That is why it is nonsense to say that the fourth element of the Bill was foreseeable.

Mr. Hughes: We do not disagree about that. I have never argued that the fourth proposal, on summary detention, was foreseeable. However, it was foreseeable that we would have a football-related Bill, so the Government cannot refute the argument for introducing it earlier in the year, when it might have been amended or expanded. When three of the four measures were always predictable, it is not defensible for them to bring the Bill to the House two and a half weeks before the recess.

Mr. Straw: I have already made it clear to the House about 15 times that I would have preferred the powers relating to the banning order to be included in the legislation introduced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. We have been over the history of that, and there is no argument about that. It must be said, however, that the advice that we received, which I transmitted to the House, was that there was a general belief that the existing powers were likely to prove satisfactory to deal with known hooligans, and indeed they did. They did not prove satisfactory to deal with an emerging and substantial problem.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he thought that there might be a loophole in the Bill because it did not cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whether we take the Bill through the House slowly or quickly there will be what he describes as a loophole because Parliament, with his full approval, has legislated to transfer responsibility for the criminal law in Scotland to a Scottish Parliament. It does not matter how much time we take because any criminal law legislation that we pass will be confined to England and Wales and, in certain circumstances, to Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what is the view of the Scottish Parliament, and I can tell him the Scottish Executive's view. They do not at present see any need


to bring in legislation parallel to the measures that I am proposing for England and Wales, but they have undertaken to keep the matter under review.
In the meantime, arrangements will be made for the closest possible liaison between police officers north and south of the border to establish whether there is any evidence of people seeking to evade the new controls in the way suggested. We shall also be looking to set up similar contacts with the police force in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about the Bill not applying to Scotland extends to the Republic of Ireland, where we have had no legislative authority since 1921—and quite right too. However, as it is part of the common travel area, it is possible for someone to seek to evade the controls by travelling to Dublin without a passport, because none is needed, and then travelling elsewhere.
The point is that there is no legislation anywhere in the world that can eliminate all criminal behaviour. The question is whether legislation will better control that criminal behaviour. The judgment that the Bill will do so carries the approbation of the House. Just because one cannot do everything—in this case ensure that the legislation extends to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—should not mean that one should not do anything. In other words, we should legislate for the serious site of the problem: England and Wales.
I believe that there is adequate time for debating the details of the Bill in this House and the other place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald squeaks at that proposition and seeks to raise objections to it, but I remind her of the extraordinary position into which the Conservative Opposition have got themselves. Before the end of the tournament in Netherlands and Belgium, her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was calling for legislation to be brought forward and dealt with immediately.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady says yes. Had such legislation been brought forward straight away, aside from the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to envisage how it could have operated effectively in a matter of days, one thing is absolutely certain: it could not conceivably have received the care and attention that has been devoted to this Bill on this occasion—[Interruption.] It is no good other Opposition Members squawking at this stage. That was the Leader of the Opposition's proposition.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I am about to finish.
Before the right hon. Lady starts to quibble about the time that has been allocated under the guillotine motion, she needs to remind herself of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in Bradford on 22 June. He said:
I say the time to act is right now, for England's qualifying matches, for the next World Cup are only months away. That is why I am making this important offer to the Prime Minister.
He did not use the word "guarantee", but he might have done—
The Conservative party will give our full support and co-operation in Parliament to Government legislation that will stop known hooligans from travelling to football matches abroad, extend the

restrictions on international matches, give consideration to increasing the severity of punishments. Other European countries have shown that tough measures and a clear political will can win the battle against hooligans.
That is what he said, that is what we are delivering and that is what we expect the Conservative Opposition to deliver with us—for that is the guarantee that the Leader of the Opposition gave on this legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: in paragraph 1(4), leave out from "Consideration" to end of paragraph 1(5) and insert—
and on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July.—[Sir G. Young.]

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 56.

Division No. 269]
[6.35 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Colman, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corston, Jean


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Banks, Tony
Crausby, David


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Berry, Roger
Davidson, Ian


Best, Harold
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blackman, Liz
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blizzard, Bob



Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Borrow, David
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobbin, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Mrs Christine
Efford, Clive


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Cann, Jamie
Follett, Barbara


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Galloway, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coaker, Vernon
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Grogan, John


Coleman, lain
Gunnell, John






Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Healey, John



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mountford, Kali


Hepburn, Stephen
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoey, Kate
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hope, Phil
Olner, Bill


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr Kim
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hoyle, Lindsay
Palmer, Dr Nick


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pearson, Ian


Hurst, Alan
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Illsley, Eric
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Quinn, Lawrie


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rammell, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kemp, Fraser
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kidney, David
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rowlands, Ted


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roy, Frank


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruane, Chris


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruddock, Joan


Laxton, Bob
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lepper, David
Salter, Martin


Leslie, Christopher
Sarwar, Mohammad


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Linton, Martin
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McCabe, Steve



McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Southworth, Ms Helen


McDonnell, John
Spellar, John


McFall, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stinchcombe, Paul


McWalter, Tony
Stoate, Dr Howard


McWilliam, John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stringer, Graham


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric



Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Merron, Gillian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)





Timms, Stephen
Watts, David


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Todd, Mark



Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Truswell, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith
Wyatt, Derek


Vis, Dr Rudi



Walley, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Jackie
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Brand, Dr Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Livsey, Richard


Burnett, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Burstow, Paul
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cable, Dr Vincent
Moore, Michael


Chidgey, David
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Chope, Christopher
Oaten, Mark


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Öpik, Lembit



Rendel, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Shepherd, Richard



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Townend, John


Flynn, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Webb, Steve


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Gale, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Noes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Donald Gorrie and


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Tom Brake.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill:—

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

(3) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put by the Chairman or Speaker—

(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or
(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill;

the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions or (as the case may be) those provisions.

Order of proceedings

3. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Dilatory motions

4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

5. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Business Committee

6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Supplemental orders

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In its wisdom, the House has passed an amendment to the motion ensuring that
Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July.
You will know that the Order Paper for tomorrow will carry the date 18 July, but the convention and tradition of the House is that the House remains in the day on which it is sitting until the Adjournment or the rise of the House on that day. That will mean that the House must adjourn prior to the conclusion of the Third Reading, in order that the Third Reading may end on 18 July. That is immensely wise, as it will give us time for further consideration. What representations have you received to indicate at what time on 17 July the House will adjourn, in order for us to reach 18 July?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have received no representations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that sometimes, at 5 o'clock in the morning, I lose track of the date, but I certainly do not lose track of the time. The House will manage to get through the proceedings all right.

Orders of the Day — Football (Disorder) Bill

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

[Mr. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 1

FOOTBALL MATCHES: PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE OR DISORDER

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 20, page 1, leave out lines 17 to 20.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 21, in schedule 1, page 9, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 10.
Amendment No. 28, in schedule 1, page 9, leave out lines 5 to 19.
Government amendment No. 42.
Amendment No. 7, in schedule 1, page 9, line 8, leave out—
'If it appears to a constable in uniform'
and insert—
If a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds to believe'.
Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 9, line 9, after "him", insert—
'(being behaviour which the constable has reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a criminal offence under the law of England and Wales)'.
Amendment No. 33, in schedule 1, page 9, line 14, leave out—
'until he has decided whether or not'
and insert—
'for such time as is reasonably necessary for him to ascertain whether or not it is necessary'.
Amendment No. 36, in schedule 1, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
'if authorised to do so by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent'.
Amendment No. 37, in schedule 1, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
'and shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing.'.
Government amendment No. 43.
Amendment No. 38, in schedule 1, page 9, line 19, leave out "24 hours" and insert "12 hours".
Amendment No. 34, in schedule 1, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
'; and the grounds for, and continued necessity of, such detention shall be reviewed by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent every three hours, and by a chief officer of police after 12 hours.'.

Amendment No. 35, in schedule 1, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
'(5) No person shall be detained under subsection (3) above more than once in any period of 48 hours, nor shall any person be subject to detention under subsection (3) above for a total period of more than 24 hours within any one period of seven days.'.
Government amendment No. 44.
Amendment No. 8, in schedule 1, page 9, line 20, leave out—
'If it appears to a constable in uniform'
and insert—
'If a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds to believe'.
Amendment No. 9, in schedule 1, page 9, line 23, leave out—
'an officer of at least the rank of inspector'
and insert "a magistrate's warrant".
Amendment No. 11, in schedule 1, page 9, line 24, leave out "inspector" and insert "superintendent".
Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
Amendment No. 39, in schedule 1, page 10, line 21, at end insert—
'21D—Where a person, having been detained under section 21A(3) or having been issued with a notice under section 21B(2), appears before a magistrates' court as respondent to a complaint for the making of a banning order, and the complaint is dismissed, the court may on the application of the respondent order that the appropriate chief officer of police shall pay to the respondent such sum as, in the opinion of the court, is justified to compensate the respondent for any costs incurred as a result of any delay in, or cancellation of, a journey being undertaken by the respondent when he was detained under section 21A(3) or issued with a notice under section 2IB(2), as the case may be.'.

Mr. Hughes: I shall speak specifically to amendment No. 21. As a warm-up, may I point out to the Committee that at 6.52 pm we are beginning the first of 17 scheduled debates, all of which must be finished by midnight? If ever there was a nonsense, this is it. The first group contains 20 of the 46 amendments, including one significant amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General; 11 amendments tabled by right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench, all of which relate to important issues; two amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me; and five Government amendments, tabled on Friday to a Bill that the Government published on Thursday.
A Government change of mind is sometimes welcome, but one does not usually see such a speedy transition in legislation—[Interruption.] In case the Hansard writers did not hear the sedentary comment, I shall repeat it, as it deserves recognition: new Labour, new amendment. One might add new Labour, new tough measure every new day. Nevertheless, all the amendments are a move in the right direction.
The debate takes us immediately to what the Home Secretary called in the previous debate the core and important new proposal in the Bill, not floated before, not discussed before, not trailed before: Parliament is asked to agree to a new form of summary detention, whereby people can be stopped when they fulfil certain conditions. At the end of the debate, I shall ask the Committee to agree to the two things that we can do to take out that proposal and start again.
There are two parts to the proposal—a trailer in clause 1(1)(d), which my hon. Friends and I seek to delete, and the substantive matter, which appears in schedule 1, paragraph 4, under the heading "Summary measures: detention", the first part of which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire has also proposed we should delete. He goes part of the way towards what we seek to do, but we believe that it is better to start again.
I pray in aid, because it is so supportive, the editorial in The Guardian on Saturday, which appeared after my hon. Friends and I had held our discussion. It was entitled:
MPs play a blinder but hooligan bill should go to extra time.
Having agreed that three bits of the law need to be changed—which is the view taken by my hon. Friends and I and many other members of the Committee—the editorial continues:
But more important, are two issues of civil rights.
Government Ministers must be more specific in the bill about the conditions under which people can be banned for behaviour which falls short of criminal actions. It is far too vaguely worded at present ("there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order would help prevent football-related violence or disorder"). Second—
this is the matter that we are debating—
the trigger which allows a police officer to arrest and detain someone for up to 24 hours, simply on the basis that their behaviour is such that immediate inquiries should be made—
that is the only justification required—
must be totally rewritten.
My hon. Friends and I agree. We formed that view last week. We would end up with a nonsense, badly drafted and still arguably inconsistent, even if we carried all the good amendments on the amendment paper. We ask the Committee to send to Report stage and on to the other place a Bill without that provision, so that the other place can start again and try to get some decent drafting, with a decent proposal that commands the support of Parliament.
As a result of debates in recent days, the proposal has been shown to be bad law. I refer not so much to the enabling provision in clause 1 as to the substantive provision in the schedule. I shall try to persuade the Committee of why those parts of the Bill should go.
The Bill breaks down the procedure as follows: a constable in uniform does not believe that the behaviour of the person in front of him is a criminal offence or even that the person is violent. All that is necessary is that the person's behaviour makes the constable decide that immediate inquiries should be made as to whether various conditions, which appear elsewhere in the Bill, are met.
The conditions that must be met are, first, that the person in front of the police officer at Dover, Newhaven or any other port or airport has at any time, whether before or after this Bill becomes law, caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—in other words, the issue is whether the person has, at any time, anywhere in the world, done anything that may or may not have been a criminal offence, and which has caused or contributed to violence or disorder. That is the trigger, and the police officer has only to decide whether the behaviour of the person in front of him makes him want to make inquiries as to whether that is the case.
I have described the first trigger. The police officer then has to decide that he or she will detain somebody, potentially for 24 hours. During that 24 hours, the police

have to decide whether to serve a notice, for which they have to see a senior officer. The notice states that the person who has been detained must appear before a magistrates court, cannot leave England or Wales and may have to surrender a passport. If the police believe that the person will disappear before the notice is served, they can make an arrest. They therefore have the power to detain, arrest, hold, consider for 24 hours and go to a magistrates court.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for precisely the reasons that he has outlined, the police should be required to take the person to an immediate magistrates court hearing? They would then know that their tackle was in order and that there were substantial reasons for preventing the person from leaving the country.

7 pm

Mr. Hughes: I agree with that. [Interruption.] It is worth repeating the sedentary comment that whether their tackle is in order is not the first question that the police should ask themselves. If it has been a long night and a hard day, that might be a relevant question. We could speculate on that; it might enliven an otherwise tedious and difficult shift.
Let me paraphrase the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has tabled an amendment which proposes that there should be a magistrates court or sitting wherever a person can be detained. Although that is a good idea in theory, my hon. Friends and I believe that it is not a good idea in practice, given that the Government are closing magistrates courts throughout the country. We would end up with no magistrates courts apart from those at every airport and seaport, and any other point of departure abroad for a football hooligan. That is probably not a good idea.
Our view, which I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough—who is so competent in such matters—shares, is that the person should be taken to a court as soon as possible. Courts, magistrates and judges can sit during the evening or the night, especially if they are alerted. To be fair to Conservative Members, they have tabled another amendment which would provide for a warrant to be issued to begin the process. Like Conservative Members, we believe that if we are going to start taking liberties away from people, it should be done on good, independent authority. If the police wanted to raid the house of the hon. Member for Gainsborough or that of the Home Secretary, we would expect them to go a magistrate to get a warrant to do that. I accept that judicial, not administrative, authority should be required for the process that we are discussing.
The whole procedure breaks down into two stages. The first can be described as, "I'll think about it, with nothing to go on other than behaviour." How are police officers meant to judge behaviour? We debated that at length on Thursday. What constitutes behaviour? Does wearing a shirt with colourful language printed on it constitute had behaviour? Does being rowdy, or with others who are rowdy, or saying nothing when asked a question, constitute bad behaviour? The Bill does not answer those questions. It is merciful that the Government have had second thoughts about some proposals.

Mr. Mike Hancock: If a person who was stopped by the police said, "I've decided not to


go abroad; I want to go home", would the person's desire to leave constitute a breach, which would be an arrestable offence because the man was resisting the policeman's attempt to detain him against his wishes?

Mr. Hughes: Yes. I am not being arrogant, but I have been here for a ridiculous number of years—more than 17—and I honestly do not believe that we have considered more nonsensical drafting than that for this Bill. If people detained under the power that we are considering resisted detention, they would be committing an offence for which they could be arrested and then charged, even though the police officer was not satisfied that they had behaved violently, or reached a conclusion about whether they might behave violently. Prospective criminality can thus be created because someone says, "Excuse me, I've given up. I was going shopping abroad by taking a coach with mates who were going to the match, but I'm actually going to go home because I don't want the hassle." That is nonsense.
As well as nonsense, there is huge uncertainty in the Bill. With every day that passes, people realise what nonsense the original Bill was. More and more drafting and other changes have improved it. That suggests that there is something wrong—or that it is business as usual—in the Home Office. Producing a Bill that contains so many flaws is hardly acceptable. However, the next unanswered question is where the detention can happen. It is not obvious to me that it must happen at a port or any embarkation point. It could happen at the gates of Fratton park, Old Trafford, Roker park, St. James' park, Anfield or any football club in the country.

Mr. Bob Russell: Roker park no longer exists; it is now the stadium of light.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is much more knowledgeable than me. I was about to end with the great denouement that one could be detained outside the New Den, off the Old Kent road. It may be sufficient to stop people outside those football grounds. There is a question about where the power can apply.

Ms Claire Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill has to be drafted sufficiently widely to stop an individual on his way to ports as well as at ports? The relevant person could be on the Heathrow express; police officers at Victoria station therefore need powers to detain.

Mr. Hughes: I believe that the Bill allows anyone to be stopped anywhere. If the hon. Lady came out of her house behaving madly, badly or oddly—

Ms Ward: As if!

Mr. Hughes: I have never seen such behaviour from her, so I am not in a position to comment. She could leave her house early in the morning or late at night and risk being nicked. She supported the Bill on Thursday; I hope that mature reflection over the weekend means that she is a little less able to support it without significant amendment.
A person could be stopped anywhere—on the Heathrow express, at a railway station, on the road to the railway station or in the coach park on the way. We did not originally believe that we were legislating for that.
As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said very effectively on Thursday, the proposal affects a series of important constitutional points. Detention on the say-so of a police officer, without any previous charge or conviction, could lead to a further loss of liberty, to being taken to court and receiving a banning order—not on the ground of beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities. That could remove further liberties for up to 10 years, the breach of which could make a person liable for imprisonment for several years. That could happen to someone who has no previous conviction at home or abroad, for something that was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The House must consider carefully whether it wants to go down that road. The whole process could be triggered by a police officer's view of someone's behaviour or words.
It is absolutely certain that we need to amend the Bill. Steps have already been taken to allow us to move in the right direction. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is present. My hon. Friends have tried to emphasise that we are considering a point about liberty that is as important as several other points that have taken up much of the House's time when we understood the significance of our actions.
The Terrorism Bill and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill included proposals that shifted the burden of proof. They have taken much time in both Houses because both have said no to that proposal, and the Government have altered the definition to make it clear. There has been opposition in both Houses to the proposal that the right to jury trial can be taken away. The other House threw out that proposal and this House will give it a hard ride when the measure returns from the other place. Those constitutional proposals about the criminal justice system are no more or less important than determining when and on what basis people can be detained, arrested and charged. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has made a point about the basis on which an unconvicted free citizen can be given a criminal record.
I ask the Committee to throw out clause 1(1)(d) and paragraph 4 of schedule 1 for the reasons alluded to earlier. We work on the assumption that, constitutionally, people are allowed freedom of movement in the country. Freedom of movement between the countries of the European Union is part of the treaty of Rome. People are entitled to move by virtue of their passports, unless good reason is shown to stop them doing so because there is a challenge to the state as well as to the citizen. We should ensure that no legislation reduces any of those rights without its being clear and precise. On the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, any such legislation must include provisions for judicial review at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Committee should consider amendments Nos. 20 and 21 and decide that the best way to proceed is not to tinker with the summary detention power as drafted, but to remove it and start again. I shall give two reasons why those provisions are so ridiculous, and I choose that word advisedly. Proposed new section 21B, which will be inserted into the Football Spectators Act 1989, includes several different tests that must be passed before police officers can act. The constable involved will be asked to


judge whether it appears to him that someone's behaviour should trigger certain action. He will be asked to consider whether it appears that the person has met the condition that he has a pedigree of trouble in the past. However, unusually in legislation, proposed new section 21B(2) states:
The constable may give the person a notice in writing requiring him…to appear before a magistrates' court…and giving the constable's reasons for thinking that the condition is met.
I do not know about other colleagues, but rarely, if ever, have I seen the phrase
giving the constable's reasons for thinking
included in legislation. Normally, phrases such as "reasonable belief" or "reasonable suspicion" are used to provide a test of reasonableness. Something more than the fact that a little thought has popped in and perhaps out of a constable's mind is necessary.
The Government and the draftspeople have mercifully realised that another odd proposal must go. Suddenly, as if from the heavens, proposed new section 21B(6) states:
A person may not be arrested under subsection (5) … after he has appeared before the magistrates' court.
Does that mean that he cannot be arrested ever again for anything in any part of the country? That cannot be the intention. That is the second example of the nonsense in the Bill, and it is why we should not pass such legislation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I believe that that provision will be deleted under Government amendment No. 46, but does not that raise the further issue of whether someone can be immediately rearrested on another allegation?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct that the provision will be deleted under Government amendment No. 46, but that does not answer his question. It is not clear whether people could be detained under the provision and miss the ferries, planes, trains or coaches that would have taken them to whichever match they wanted to attend, effectively vitiating the purpose of the journey. Even if police officers then decide, in whatever time is allowed to make such a decision, that it was wrong to stop those people and that they should be let go, they could decide to rearrest them because of new information, a hunch, a new idea or speculation. That would be nonsense, and we should not have such legislation.
I am conscious of the time, so I shall deal with the other amendments in the group. I have dealt with amendment No. 28, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.

Mr. Hancock: Before my hon. Friend moves on, can he explain what he understands to be the position of someone who has been detained, but is released by the police before the magistrates court hearing? Will that person be entitled to ask the policeman to put in writing the reasons why he was originally detained and to ask the arresting officer to put in writing the reasons why the case has not been pursued? If not, why not?

Mr. Hughes: The answer to my hon. Friend's perfectly good question is no. The Bill does not require the person who is stopped to be given notice in writing. That

requirement would be added under an amendment. Certainly, it is proposed that people should be given the reasons for their detention within 24 hours, but they would not necessarily know those reasons at the outset. The police officers will not have to give any reason explicitly; they will just have to form a view. That is a dangerous and broad provision.

Mr. Hancock: Would the police officer have to tell people why they have changed their minds and on what evidence they have based their decision not to pursue the matter?

Mr. Hughes: The more questions my hon. Friend asks, the more likely I am to be caught out. I think that the answer is no. The Home Secretary has accepted that an Opposition amendment is good in principle. Under that amendment, there would be a right to compensation if someone were unlawfully stopped, detained and arrested. We would support that proposal. However, to challenge such decisions, people need to know the reasons why they were made, although they might be compensated if they were given no reason and then released, especially if they had missed their planes or whatever. My hon. Friend's sensible questions show exactly that the Bill is nonsense.
I shall allude to two more dangerous provisions. First, to trigger the process, the coppers involved have to decide whether the person in front of them has at any time in their lives caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. People need not have been convicted, shown to be likely to have been convicted, or convicted if they had been tried here for an offence that occurred abroad. The test simply involves the policeman deciding whether someone has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder, and then only on the balance of probabilities.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Martin. I was trying to deal with my hon. Friend, but I accept what you say.
There is a second trigger. People must fulfil not only that very general requirement, which has never been seen before in English law. I stand to be corrected by more learned lawyers than me. The copper has to fulfil a second test, which the court has to fulfil later, and show that, after the 24-hour detention, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder from occurring at or in connection with any regulated football match. That extremely wide provision should not be included if we want the law to be clearly interpreted by the citizen—our constituents, who may make representations about it—as well as the state.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the police officer's state of mind, namely, that he should have "reasonable grounds to believe", which is of course incorporated in Government amendment No. 42—the compromise amendment. For the benefit of those of us on the Labour Benches who will support the hon. Gentleman's amendment relating to


reasonable grounds, would he like to reflect on whether those reasonable grounds will be objective or subjective, given that the Bill is silent on that matter?

Mr. Hughes: In the words, I think, of Edward Lear, I was coming to that; I was about to turn to the Government amendments. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the Bill is silent on the matter. Under Government amendment No. 42, which is supposed to improve the Bill, but which is difficult to justify, the constable in uniform must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the first condition has been met—that is, someone has a history of violence.
Furthermore, he will have to have reasonable grounds not for suspecting, but for believing that a banning order should be made. Imagine a group of lay magistrates deciding at short notice whether a succession of people appearing before them as speedily as prostitutes appear before the magistrate at King's Cross on Monday mornings—[Interruption.] I think that someone on the Conservative Benches said, "Oh happy days, " but I may be wrong. Perhaps experience that I had not anticipated being discussed will be brought to light. [Interruption.] Indeed, some of those on the Conservative Benches are not even lawyers.
Magistrates would have to judge individuals on their merits with no guidance and according to those two criteria because they would have to decide there and then, and on the balance of probabilities, whether to make a banning order which would stop a person travelling. Magistrates would not even have to be certain. That represents a huge intrusion on civil liberties. The Bill, even with the amendments, would be impossible to interpret properly and fairly in terms of logical drafting, sensible English and dealing with the issues in a logical order.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I return to what the hon. Gentleman has described as a conversation we had on Second Reading on that issue. I happen to agree about the need to clarify the reasons for detention and when detention can be repeated, but I part company with him when he describes the power of summary detention as a constitutional innovation. Police officers in Scotland have enjoyed the power summarily to detain in all police investigations since 1980, when it was introduced by the Conservative Government. Similar legislation—the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995—was introduced subsequently. I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman voted for it, although I am not certain. More interestingly, I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Minister for Justice in Scotland, has no intention of changing those powers, because of their constitutional implications.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman properly reminds us of his intervention on Thursday. To be honest, I have not had the chance to read the Scottish legislation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), to whom 1 have spoken about the Bill, is responsible for those matters in Scotland. Even the hon. Gentleman would concede that my hon. and learned Friend has been busy in the past year introducing lots of

good, reforming legislation. He may have it in mind to change those powers, but all I know is that, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the proposal has not been adopted by the Scottish Executive or by my hon. and learned Friend, as acting First Minister. [Interruption.] Nor has the Bill. In fairness to my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot say whether he has it in mind to change the law.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Hughes: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's substantive point before he intervenes again. Scottish law and English and Welsh law have allowed both the power of detention and the power of detention for a particular purpose, but I think I am right to say that there has never been a power of detention in the absence of a previous conviction or the belief than an offence has been or is about to be committed. Under the Bill, the whole process could be gone through and a ban introduced without an offence having been committed and no view being formed that a person would ever commit an offence. That is mischief. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not accept it as good law.

Mr. Browne: I want to engage the hon. Gentleman on his contention that summary detention is a matter of great constitutional significance in the United Kingdom. In fact, it has been the norm since 1980 and was legislated for in Scotland by this Parliament. In Scotland, it is possible for a police officer with reasonable cause to suspect that an offence may have been committed to detain a person. It is possible—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. A detainee may breach the terms of the detention and accumulate a criminal record, although no offence was ever committed.

Mr. Hughes: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman makes the point better than I. Of course there is a power of detention in Scottish law, as there is in English law, but people are detained on the basis of a reasonable suspicion or a belief that an offence has been or will be committed. There is always a link between the detention and the offence. Under the Bill, a person could be detained without having committed an offence or without ever having been likely to commit an offence, because the threshold does not have an offence on the radar screen. Not only that, the Bill would not require it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed. That represents a significant difference.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that were we going through normal procedures and were the Committee meeting upstairs today and again in two days, I would be able not only to take advice, talk to my colleagues and his in the Scottish Executive and check the Scottish legislation, as would all other hon. Members, but to confirm all that with authority outside the House. That is why these are important matters. I would not want him to mislead the Committee by saying that there is a precedent for this proposal, because I do not think that there is, although there is a precedent for detention.
That leads me to the important point that my hon. Friends and I have never said that there should not be a power of detention in English law. That is not our argument. Our argument is that powers to detain have to be carefully given, clearly circumscribed by judicial authority and tightly defined so that there can be no uncertainty. On all those tests, the Bill fails.
Let me deal with the remaining points quickly as I am hugely conscious of the deadline that the Government have imposed on us, in spite of my colleagues and me resisting it as much as we could. Government amendment No. 42, to which the hon. and learned Member for Medway referred, is an improvement because it would introduce new tests. However, it also gives rise to the set of questions with which we dealt a few minutes ago. Government amendment No. 43 is an improvement, but that makes me wonder about the original drafting. Since last week, the Government have changed their view: a person could have been detained for 24 hours, but could now be detained for only four, which could be extended to six with authority. That is a significant improvement

Mr. Leigh: We are going that way.

Mr. Hughes: We are going in the right direction, but if the Government now believe that four hours is the right proposal, how could they believe last week that 24 hours—six times as long—was right? I would find that change difficult to justify and it is another example of dangerously bad legislation. To be fair to the Government, a six-hour detention would need the authority of an inspector.

Mr. Leigh: Legislation on the hoof.

Mr. Hughes: Not only did I write that phrase down when thinking about today's debate, but it keeps coming back into my mind and has done so ever since we first saw the Bill on Thursday. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is being unreasonable.
The Government have tabled amendments to proposed new section 21B, which make the case for getting rid of it and proposed new section 21A and rolling them together to achieve a clear provision that includes all the different parts of the offence. I have made the point that the removal of that extraordinary arrest provision and the phrase "constable's reasons for thinking" represents a welcome improvement.
The Conservatives' amendment No. 7 represents an improvement, but it would retain the behaviour test. Amendment No. 6 would keep the behaviour test, but it also refers to an offence. I am not clear as to what offences the Conservative amendments would deal with. Would they cover football violence offences that do not merit an arrest under present law? Perhaps the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will explain. We are not discussing people who will be nicked for dropping litter, although that is an offence, because clearly such an offence is not covered by the Bill.
Amendment No. 33 would produce a nonsense provision. There would be two tests of the words "reasonably necessary". It would have to be "reasonably necessary" for the police officer to discover whether it was "reasonably necessary" to detain a person. That would not make good law.
7.30 pm
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has proposed that the officer who has to give authority should be of a higher status, which would be an improvement. Her amendment to place on the person an earlier requirement to give reasons in writing deals with

the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) raised. If there is to be an earlier stage, that is certainly something we should provide.
The Tories have proposed a 12-hour detention period. The Home Secretary has gone further than that and has dealt with the criticisms that my hon. Friends and I made by making it three hours. The Tories suggested a three-hourly review. They would probably accept that that may not be necessary if there is a four-hour maximum period. The Tories have made a good point in their amendment No. 35, which is that no person should be detained seriatim. We must prevent vexatious detention. If a police officer realises that he has made a mistake, he cannot continue to detain that person. We need to put that in the Bill somehow.
The "reasonable grounds to believe" provision in amendment No. 11 is better and more consistent, but still does not wrap everything up coherently, and is open to the criticism that the hon. and learned Member for Medway made. We may need to consider the requirement for a warrant, but there is no consensus on that yet. We welcome the sensible compensation provision.
We welcome the proposed changes to the Bill. We welcome the fact that the Government propose to reduce detention from 24 hours to four or six hours. We welcome the fact that the Government propose that detention should be with the authority of an officer of a higher rank, and that detention will be on the basis not of someone's behaviour, but of reasonable grounds to believe or reasonable grounds to suspect.
The Home Secretary knows that we have at all times been willing to try to get the Bill right, whether we liked it or not. The Bill as amended still contains a lot of nonsense and inconsistency, and it raises but never adequately answers the question why we need the power to detain. If someone is going to commit or has committed an offence, he should be nicked. Arrestable offences already exist. If the Government want a banning order, let us have one. The burden of proof is on the Home Secretary to make the case, and he must satisfy the House that this power is needed. He must explain whether anyone would be caught by it without a breach of their civil liberties who would not have been caught by the other three provisions. We think that we need to remove this provision and start again, and we believe that the other place will support us.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain the approach that the Government intend to take to the amendments. I should first like to deal with the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which is whether it is appropriate and proportionate to have the powers of summary process in what is described as the fourth part of the Bill.
My understanding, not least from the relative silence of the Liberal Democrats, is that they support in principle the idea of a football banning order available through civil process, in slower time.

Mr. Hughes: indicated assent.

Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that agreement. In that case, the hon. Gentleman's argument that one should never have a power of arrest unless it leads to a criminal


conviction falls away. The football banning order is a civil process, and is similar to that of an anti-social behaviour order—that was accepted by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when it was originally proposed two years ago, and by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in discussions last year on the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999.
If there is a process by which an order can be made by the court under a civil jurisdiction, there has to be a process to get those people into court. In extremis, the only way of getting people into court is by a coercive power, which amounts to the issue of a warrant by a court or other more summary process. When a football banning order is being dealt with in slower time, if a respondent fails to respond to the complaint, the court can issue a warrant for his arrest and it is for the police to execute it. I accept that there is a difference between the bench issuing a warrant and its being executed by the police and an individual police officer, off his own bat, deciding to make an arrest, but there is no difference in principle in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that a power of arrest should never apply when only the civil process is involved, and the process does not lead to the prospect of a criminal offence. That is simply not the case.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am having enormous difficulty understanding how a process can be described as a civil process if it allows someone to be arrested and detained—in other words, locked up—even for a comparatively short period as the Home Secretary now proposes, and makes him subject to an order of the court that restricts his liberty to travel, which is contrary to European law, or at least requires strong reasons under European law. The Home Secretary is well aware that the European convention considers the substance, not the language, of the process. Could the Home Secretary explain how he maintains the notion that it is a civil rather than a criminal process?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is a difference between the civil and the criminal process. He also knows that the House, with agreement from both sides, including his own party, has accepted the principle of the anti-social behaviour order, which is that there should be civil process.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I have not.

Mr. Straw: I realise that there were deep divisions in the Conservative party on this issue, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the debates that took place almost exactly two years ago on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the principle of the anti-social behaviour order was supported from the Opposition Front Bench by the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. The House accepted that civil jurisdiction of the magistrates was an appropriate vehicle to constrain the anti-social behaviour that is described in the 1998 Act. That is a civil process. It leads to the courts making a coercive order, which amounts to a restraining injunction.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, because I must make progress.
The House has accepted the coercive orders issued by magistrates courts exercising a civil jurisdiction with regard to anti-social behaviour orders, yet they are just as oppressive as, if not more oppressive than, the restraint that is exercisable by a football banning order.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, the civil courts have long had powers of injunction against individuals to restrain a commission of nuisance and many other public and private acts. They are coercive, but there is not the least suggestion that they are outwith articles 5 or 6.

Sir Nicholas LyeII: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving way. With all respect, I believe that he is confused on this matter. The comparison with anti-social behaviour orders is a fair one, but there is a fundamental distinction between an injunction, which orders someone not to do something illegal but does not restrict his liberties—it is not a restriction of liberty to have to obey the law—and the Bill, which enables someone to be arrested and detained on suspicion or on reasonable grounds that they have committed a criminal offence. The Home Secretary has rightly indicated that he will accept that aspect. There is a fundamental distinction there, and the Home Secretary should take advice—even if he does not want to answer that point now—on how he calls the two things the same.

Mr. Straw: With great respect, I do not accept that there is a fundamental distinction. Many injunctions issued by the courts—regarding nuisance, for example—prevent somebody from doing what they want to do or from going about what they think is their lawful business. We see this order and the anti-social behaviour order as similar to injunctions; they are preventive and not penal in nature. When a court has decided that there is a risk of a person contributing to violence and disorder at a football match, I do not happen to believe that preventing him from going to that match is a penal sanction. It is a minor and modest restriction of something that he wanted to do, but it is pretty minor and modest, given that he can watch the match on television.
In terms of proportionality, the courts are well versed in balancing rights under the convention, because the public have rights under the convention, as well as individuals. We are balancing the rights of an individual to go abroad and commit violence and disorder at or around a football match against the right of the rest of the country, for example, not to have the reputation of the country so vilely abused as it was at Charleroi and Brussels.

Mr. Browne: Under the Scottish equivalent of an injunction, it would be possible to restrict someone's movement with an interdict. Would it be possible for Chelsea, for example, to seek an injunction against named supporters to prevent them from attending football matches?

Mr. Straw: Since Chelsea is a private company, it could, if it wished, go to court and seek injunctions against any of its supporters who sought to gain entry to its ground without permission.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) may not accept the principle of the football banning order as a civil process, but the


Liberal Democrats do. If he believes that there are no circumstances in which civil process should ever be used to deal with this kind of problem, he must accept that we have to wash our hands of taking effective action against what we saw in Charleroi and Brussels. Obviously, the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is shared by a number of Conservative Members. However, there is no point in the Conservatives' complaining the next time trouble occurs, because they will have decided that no other process is available to restrain such behaviour.
The Liberal Democrats take the view that the civil route to a football banning order ought to be available. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has accepted that there has to be a process for getting respondents into court if they do not wish to go there. In slow time, the process is a summons or complaint served against the person. If he refuses to comply with the summons, a warrant is issued for his arrest. The fourth part of the Bill deals with circumstances where someone is in the process of leaving the country—although not necessarily at the port—and when there are reasonable grounds for believing that he will get involved in violence or disorder at or around a football match.
If we want to deal with that, we must have a process for getting those individuals into court as quickly as possible—if that is what the Committee wants. We have thought about this matter and we have shown that we are open to suggestion on amendments. However, I cannot conceive of any other means by which we can get individuals into court for consideration of whether or not a football banning order ought to be issued except by giving the police powers, however constrained, that are ultimately coercive to require that person to go to court.
Moreover, because the alternative is to do nothing and let the person go abroad and commit mayhem, there has to be a court process and a means of getting people to court before there has been a court process. That is why we have suggested that the police should have a power to stop someone, question them—to form a proper judgment about whether they ought to be subject to a court process—and get them to court. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person will not comply with the notice given, we should arrest him and deliver him to the court, as the bench does in other circumstances. The structure of this part of the Bill is, I suggest, perfectly coherent. Some may disagree, but we have thought the process through.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly proper point, and I have not argued that there could not be detention. If the precondition were a previous conviction, for example, and if detention immediately followed—based on action that was authorised by judicial process and on reasonable grounds—we could have one process, rather than two. If the Home Secretary is willing to look at that, he will be moving in the right direction.

Mr. Straw: We have one order. At the time of Charleroi, many suggestions were made that we should take powers similar to those used in Germany, where it appears that the police had a power simply to stop people and turn them back, partly on the basis of lists that they had maintained.
We know from experience in Belgium that, in certain circumstances, the police there have an administrative power of arrest under which they need no grounds

whatever to pick someone up and detain them for 12 hours. I never thought that such a process was appropriate; it is quite inconsistent with the rule of law and traditions of this country to give the police a power to pick people up without that ending in court action. There are limited circumstances—I am not suggesting that they are parallel—where the police have the powers to detain and that does not end in court process, as under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts and immigration legislation. Those are different circumstances.
Given the desire to deal with the mischief of people not previously known as football hooligans going abroad and causing the kind of mayhem that we saw in Charleroi, there is a process by which the police could intercept those people—but that has to be linked to a court process. We have proposed to deal with that by the football banning order: one order with two routes—one slower and one more urgent—to achieve that end.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot have it both ways. I have tried to be as open as possible and I put a draft before the House as early as possible to be the subject of discussion. Legislation is an iterative process, and so it should be. I have sought to respond whenever right hon. and hon. Members have made suggestions.
As this is a faster process than usual, we have had to act quickly. I listened to the debate on Thursday, discussed the matter with the Minister of State and came to the view that we had not got the Bill right and that we should therefore table amendments. Since we had formed that view, we decided to respond straight away, rather than dragging things out until today.
Government amendment No. 42 changes new section 21A(2) in a way that I hope will command widespread agreement. It makes it clear that a constable must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person before him has
at any time…caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewher
before detaining him to make further inquiries. He must also have reasonable grounds to believe that
making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches
New section 21B is similarly amended so that the constable must also have those grounds before directing someone not to leave the country.

Dr. Lynne Jones: What possible reasonable grounds might a constable have for believing that somebody had
caused or contributed to any violence…?

Mr. Straw: That goes to the heart of the measure. It depends on the evidence. The constable must believe that there are reasonable grounds for such a suspicion and for believing that a banning order would help to prevent such violence or disorder. The phrases are directly paralleled by powers that have been in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for more than 15 years, and the courts are well used to interpreting them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said, such powers are also paralleled in legislation in Scotland. We decided to make this important change in the light of comments made on Thursday.
The inclusion of "reasonable grounds" aims to dispel any lingering notion that the measure could be used to detain and issue a notice to people solely on their appearance or on the basis of meagre evidence. The constable is effectively required to ask himself the same question as the magistrate and consider whether the evidence would justify a banning order before issuing a notice.
Government amendment No. 43 responds to concerns about the maximum period of detention for further inquiries as originally drafted. Originally, there would have been 24 hours, either for inquiry or for process to the court, or both. It would not have been possible for someone to be detained for more than 24 hours overall.
I accept the concerns that have been expressed, and I am satisfied—and so, more importantly, are the police—that four hours, or six if authorisation is received from an inspector or above, is sufficient time to enable the constable to make his inquiries. At the very latest, a decision on whether to issue a notice will have to be made on the evidence before the constable when the period expires. I feel that that strikes an acceptable balance between the rights of the individual and the operational imperatives on the police in the necessary effort to combat hooliganism.
Government amendment No. 44 is consequential on the foregoing two amendments. Government amendment No. 45 further tightens up the procedures. There will now be a requirement on the constable to state the grounds for issuing a notice directing someone not to leave the country and to appear before a magistrates court.
The additional safeguards that the Government amendments put in place should go a long way to reassuring those who have been concerned about the powers granted to the police that they are no more than is required in order to tackle the problem of hooliganism effectively. They are no more than is needed to ensure that, when there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order should be made, the individuals can be got to court quickly so that the court can make the decision.
We cannot accept amendments Nos. 20 and 21, as they would entirely remove the measure that empowers a constable to issue a notice. Similarly, we cannot accept amendment No. 28, which would remove the power to detain to make immediate inquiries to ascertain whether a person has
at any time…caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are superseded by the Government amendments about which I have just spoken, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will not press them to a Division.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are not acceptable because operational practicalities are such that an inspector may well be the senior officer present at the scene. Authorisations for many parts of PACE used always to be given at the level of superintendent or above. As a result of a process that began under the previous Administration, with our support, of providing greater empowerment to ranks lower down, some of the powers are now authorised

at the level of inspector. My recollection is that we made proposals to extend authorisations at inspector level as amendments to PACE in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and I believe that those amendments carried the support of the whole House.
Inspectors are senior and experienced police officers, well used to making difficult decisions, and I think it wholly appropriate that they should be able to authorise the use of this new power. Those who are worried about some continental police practices should bear it in mind that all these powers take place in the context of strong powers—to be made stronger in due course, when we fulfil our commitment to introduce firmer arrangements—that already exist in the Police Complaints Authority to investigate complaints against the police.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: What about amendment No. 9?

Mr. Straw: I will come back to that in a moment.
Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 38 are superseded by Government amendments reducing the maximum period of detention, and I hope that they will not be pressed to a vote.
Amendment No. 35 is designed to ensure that the police are unable to detain a person on more than one occasion in 48 hours and to limit the maximum aggregate period of detention in any seven-day period. I am not sure that the first limb is helpful. The second is unnecessary in the light of the Government amendment restricting detention periods to a maximum of four hours.
Providing that someone shall not be detained more than once in 48 hours has the following consequence: if someone is detained and then released and a direction not to leave the country is issued, and that person seeks to breach the direction and leave the country from another port, it becomes illegal for officers at that port to detain him while inquiries are made. That would not be a sensible outcome.
I understand that amendment No. 35 is designed to ensure that the power is not used oppressively. I am certainly ready to consider the matter further, and if I conclude that a serious mischief has been left undealt with, we will arrange for suitable amendments to be introduced in another place.
Amendment No. 36, as it relates to authorisation of an extended period of detention, is superseded by Government amendment No. 43. I hope that that will be accepted.
Amendment No. 37 is not strictly necessary. It is a long-established requirement of English law that reasons for detention must be given. However, I am content to accept this additional safeguard and agree to the amendment, so we will have belt and braces.
Amendment No. 9—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah! He has found it."] Like a genie out of a bottle. I have suddenly remembered the answer. Luckily, I can read my handwriting for once. The amendment would require a magistrate's warrant before a notice could be issued. That is simply impractical. The Bill is designed to get the person before the court as soon as possible.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: That is how we read the amendment, even if the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise.
Amendment No. 39 deals with compensation. I accept that the Bill would be improved by explicit provisions on compensation, going beyond the provisions of common law, and we are currently preparing an amendment on the subject to be introduced in another place. Among the matters to be covered that are not covered by amendment No. 39 are the maximum amount and the possibility of appeal against refusal to grant compensation. I spent 18 years in opposition and I well recognise the difficulties of drafting amendments, so I make no complaint about the amendment. It raises an important principle, but I hope that in the light of what I have said the right hon. Lady will withdraw it.
I have spoken as briefly as I can to cover the ground and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will accept that we have gone a long way to meet the spirit and, in some cases, the letter of the amendments that have been tabled, except those that simply seek to remove a major, operative part of the Bill, which we cannot accept.

8 pm

Miss Widdecombe: This is an important group of amendments, many of which go to the heart of the doubts and queries that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have about the Bill. So important is this group of amendments that I regret that we were obliged to spend more than two hours debating a completely unnecessary guillotine motion: that time would have been much better spent debating the merits of the Bill's various clauses.
It is true that both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I—not to mention other right hon. and hon. Friends—have called for some time for measures to be taken. However, if the Home Secretary is frank, he will admit that the fourth of the four options that he set out in his statement had never been sought; was completely new; and is the source of most of the concern that has surrounded our debates. The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that on no occasion did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or I urge him to introduce that particular power. I have never suggested that that power does not have merit, but I have said that it is new and unexpected and has serious implications for the civil liberties of innocent people and for the police vis-a-vis the courts, and that there should therefore be a full and proper examination of that power. What the Home Secretary sees as a contradiction in the Opposition's position is not in fact a contradiction at all.

Mr. Straw: I do not disagree for a second with the right hon. Lady about the need to debate the issue properly, or that our proposal is new. However, she said last month that my position would have been very much strengthened if I
had taken all measures that other countries have taken.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000: Vol. 352, c. 38.]
I took her to mean such powers as the German police had taken, and that, while at that stage we did not have such powers in mind, she did.

Miss Widdecombe: I admire the elegant wriggle that the Home Secretary has just performed, but it does not take us any further forward.
I shall, with as much brevity as the Home Secretary, turn to the amendments before us. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 stand in my name. I recognise that Government

amendment No. 42 seeks to cover the sources of concern, which were the grounds on which a constable or an inspector could detain, delay or prevent somebody from travelling. I recognise that Government amendment No. 42 takes care of many of my concerns, and the Home Secretary will be relieved to know that I shall not press my amendments.
I must, however, take up an issue which I find puzzling—and which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also found puzzling. I do not believe that the Home Secretary gave a response to it in his contribution. In Government amendment No. 42, the Government use the phrase "reasonable grounds for suspecting". In our amendments, we offer the phrase "reasonable grounds to believe". The Government have also used "suspect" and "believe" in different places in the Bill. Is there a distinction between those words? Are we being asked to accept a lower standard in Government amendment No. 42—or is it just an accident that the Government resort to the two different words in different places? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also raised that point and I should be grateful for clarification. Even in the absence of clarification, however, we will not press amendments Nos. 6, 7 or 8.
Amendment No. 33 makes an important point which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey appeared unable to understand, but which is in fact rather obvious. We sought to apply the test that detention should last only as long as reasonably necessary, and not until the officer had decided whether to proceed. If detention could last only as long as reasonably necessary, that would introduce an objective test. A police officer detaining somebody until he gets round to deciding whether to proceed is not an objective test. I accept that some of the Government's amendments cover that point and I shall not press amendment No. 33.
I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say about amendments Nos. 36 and 11, when he took issue over the suggestion that the appropriate rank to grant authorisations should be superintendent. Amendment No. 36 also seeks to introduce an authorisation process: there is an authorisation process for the new powers in proposed new section 21B but not for the exercise of powers in proposed new section 21A. I await the Home Secretary's comments before deciding whether to take the matter further.
I thank the Government for accepting amendment No. 37, but I do not think that it is as superfluous as the Home Secretary tried to suggest. As the right hon. Gentleman is in emollient mood, I shall not press him further on that. Similarly, I accept that Government amendment No. 43 goes beyond what we propose in amendments Nos. 44 and 38, in which we sought to limit the time of detention and to reduce it from 24 hours. We shall not, therefore, press those amendments.

Mr. Straw: It may be helpful if I pick up the right hon. Lady's point about the use of the words "suspect" and "believe" in different places. It is deliberate, I am relieved to tell the House, and—more important—it minors and draws on the provisions of PACE. The phrase "reasonable grounds to suspect" is appropriate for the powers of detention and to make immediate inquiries. Once the inquiries have been made, the constable needs to have


"reasonable grounds to believe" that the conditions for a banning order have been met. That is consistent with PACE.

Miss Widdecombe: I am glad that the Home Secretary's brain caught up with him. It did not have far to travel. I note his explanation and, as I have said, we shall not press those amendments. However, I ask him to accept that amendment No. 35 has merit in that it would provide that the power of arrest and detention in proposed new section 21A should not be used repeatedly. Without that safeguard, it could be used seriatim as a power of preventive detention. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that there could be merit in the proposal, and I will accept his offer of considering it further and perhaps seeking to introduce an amendment in the other place. If he does not, others may seek to do so.
I note the Home Secretary's comments on amendment No. 11. I retain some doubt about whether proposed powers of such gravity should be left in the hands of the inspector, but the right hon. Gentleman has described operational reasons and I am prepared let that rest.
We shall, however, press amendment No. 9 to a Division when the appropriate time comes, unless the Home Secretary can persuade me that I am in deep error. The right hon. Gentleman lost his response to that amendment, then found a relevant bit of handwriting in the margin to his notes, but he did not go on to explore it very thoroughly. He has therefore not convinced me that I am in any error.
Amendment No. 9 would make the issue of a notice to appear authorisable only by judicial warrant. That process is not unknown in law. The amendment would modify what at present is an arbitrary power. Unless the Government can give me a good reason to the contrary, we shall feel constrained to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady knows that I am sympathetic to the thrust of her argument. Does she not agree, however, that the correct process should be that the police officer who stops a person initially must have formed the view that he has sufficient justification to convince a magistrate that his action is appropriatein—in addition to his obtaining the judicial authorisation of a magistrate's warrant? If the Bill provided that the same test had to be applied by the officer making the initial decision to stop a person and by the court, the measure would be simpler and clearer.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, that is a reasonable suggestion.

Mr. Straw: I want to help the right hon. Lady on amendment No. 9. The conundrum concerns the need to get people into court, and to instigate a process that will ensure that matters are properly considered by the court. For the purposes of this argument, at least, it appears to be accepted that the police will have to intercept people about to leave the country who are intent on hooliganism. However, there will then be a need to get those people into court, and for the court to have an opportunity to consider the case against them.
First, the Government propose that the constable should have a power to stop people, to make inquiries about them, and to stop them disappearing while those inquires are made. The time limit governing that power is now to be four hours, extendable to six, but the inquiries may only take a short time. Secondly, it is our view that, if the constable is satisfied, on the basis of previous convictions, that further action is necessary, he must be able to issue a notice to get people into court.
The right hon. Lady appears to be saying that, if a constable forms the view that people have contributed to violence and disorder in the past and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they will contribute to violence and disorder at a football match, those people must be taken to a magistrate who will issue a warrant to get them into court. I hope that she will consider—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the Home Secretary that he is making an intervention.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady's proposal would mean that magistrates would have to be on hand day and night wherever the power was exercisable. That would simply not be practicable.' see that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, is nodding, so I think my point about practicality is accepted.

Miss Widdecombe: I do not agree. What is impracticable about having a stipendiary magistrate on duty? If there were a real will to safeguard the rights of innocent citizens, there would be a much greater will to involve the courts and judicial processes at all stages. Therefore, I still intend to press amendment No. 9 to a Division. By the end of the debate, the Home Secretary may have thought up some even more impressive arguments, but at the moment I cannot believe that the amendment is impracticable.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I nodded at the Home Secretary because he was raising a practical problem, but my right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Enormous practical problems will arise from the Bill. A person can be under arrest for up to six hours, but what happens if he walks off before being called before the court?

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid and helpful point.
I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with amendment No. 39, which would provide for compensation to be paid if a person prevented from travelling abroad did not qualify for a banning order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted the principle of the amendment but not its drafting, and that he would raise the matter in another place. On that basis, I am happy not to press the amendment.
We welcome Government amendments Nos. 42 to 46, which do much to improve the Bill and which reflect some of the sentiments in our amendments. We are glad that they have been taken on board.
I have given much consideration to Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 20 and 21, and also to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member


for North-East Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). I do not think that we on the Opposition Front Bench can support or press them, although my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend are entitled to make their own decisions. The amendments would effectively negate this part of the Bill. We continue to want to try to improve the Bill instead of throwing it out altogether. That is why we shall not stand in the way of Third Reading tonight, although very substantial improvements must still be made before we can have confidence in the Bill.

Mr. Browne: I shall be brief. I made clear my feelings about summary detention when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As to whether the phrases "reasonable cause to suspect" or "reasonable cause to believe" would generate difficulty for magistrates, my experience in the summary criminal courts in Scotland leads me to believe that there is plenty of help with their meaning to be found in road traffic legislation. For years, those phrases have been used liberally in that legislation, and they have been well chewed over by lawyers north and south of the border. They are clearly and well understood.
I wish to speak to two issues—the right to re-detain, about which I have some concerns, and the absence in the Bill as previously drafted of any requirement for constables to record the reasons for stopping a person, or to supply those reasons to the people detained. I hope to make clear to the Committee why I think that those issues are related.
Now that amendment No. 37 has been accepted, I am satisfied that the requirement to record the reasons for stopping a person has been incorporated in the Bill. That is important, but so is protecting people from the misuse of the power of summary detention. That is why the Bill should contain a clear provision preventing constables from using the four or six-hour power of detention to prevent a person from travelling, when those constables do not have the power to move to the next stage of the process—in other words, where there is no evidence to support a statement or warrant application under proposed new section 14B.
I agree with the principle of amendment No. 35, but not with its wording. I suggest that a simple amendment should be incorporated in the Bill requiring that, where a person is released at the termination of a period of detention under the relevant provision in the Bill, he will not thereafter be detained under that provision
on the same grounds, or on any grounds arising from the same circumstances
The purpose of such a simple amendment—and I understand the Home Secretary to have indicated that he has an open mind about the issue—is to prevent someone from being detained again for exactly the same reason as he was detained before. If information or reasons additional to the information or reasons previously recorded come to the constable's attention, such an amendment would allow him to exercise his statutory power again.
That suggestion to the Government is in response to the problem identified in amendment No. 35. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Malin: I wonder whether I might raise with the Minister a few nuts-and-bolts issues about the amendments in connection with detention and reference to court. By way of preamble, it is a tragedy that a Bill of this importance should be debated in such a short time. Many in the House could contribute at length to debates on amendments to improve the Bill. I was given a draft Bill on Wednesday, then a further draft, and then I sat down to work out some amendments. To cut a long story short, it was not until this morning that I knew that they had been selected, and I had them in my hand—what a way to do business. If people could see what we were doing, they would be ashamed of us.
Let me give the Government an example of practical problems that might arise when England plays football against France and 20,000 people from this country decide to go to France to see the match. Some 10,000 have tickets, 10,000 have not. The match is on a Saturday, so people will travel to France on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, or Saturday morning. Of that 20,000, let us say for the sake of argument that a fifth—4,000—will be travelling from Dover, spread over a few days, and that the police and authorities will be seriously concerned about 10 per cent., or 400 people.
Let us picture the scene. Four hundred people will be stopped by the police at Dover—or around Dover, because they are going there by different routes. Unless the police wait outside the front door of their home—I understand that under the Bill it is entirely possible for the police to stop them at any time they want to—we shall assume that all those people get to Dover. What on earth will the practical situation be?
I pause now to ask whether the Government have taken advice or soundings from the bodies that could advise on detention and trial. There are so many of them—the stipendiary bench, the Magistrates Association, immigration officers, the court service, magistrates clerks, the Law Society and the Bar Council. Will the Minister tell us informally how many of those bodies were consulted before the Bill was presented on Thursday? Will he tell us formally? Perhaps the answer is that no real consultation took place with any of them.
Let us picture the scene at Dover. If one spreads those 400 people over three days, that is 130 or 150 per day. Each of them is, in simple terms, taken into custody by a police officer who is suspicious of them. Are there enough police at Dover to do that? Will the immigration authorities at the point of exit have any powers given to them in this respect?

Mr. John Gummer: My hon. Friend fails to point out that these 150 people will be among a large number of other people. I still find it difficult to understand how, in the absence of any previous conviction, one could form a reasonable consideration that one had reasonable grounds, at that point, to detain a particular person among so many. It seems a fiction from the imagination of the Home Secretary that such a situation could arise.

Mr. Malin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We shall be coming on to that a little later. How can an officer make a judgment? Even so, he or she will make a judgment and the person will be taken into custody. Can the Minister confirm that that person can be in custody


for up to six hours only? If that is right, what happens to the person then? He has so far been treated under a criminal umbrella in that he has been placed in custody. Will the Minister tell me how many custody suites there are at Dover, and whether the police believe that they can cope? Given that the person is in a criminal situation, will the Minister confirm that he has to be released after six hours?
If that person is released, is he given bail under the Bail Act 1976, with all the criteria that apply; or is his case simply adjourned civilly, without there being any duty on him under the 1976 Act to return? If it is under the 1976 Act, and he does not return to face the court case, will the Minister confirm that all the powers of arrest and 1976 Act offences can and will be used, and that they will be used in the same proceedings as the civil complaint?

Mr. Browne: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at proposed new section 21C(2), which appears to answer his question? It provides that if people do not comply with notices under proposed new section 21B—presumably the notices that will be issued to people who are released from detention if they are not then free to go—they will be guilty of a criminal offence and may be arrested.

Mr. Matins: Yes, I have seen that. However, I am going through an exercise to find out what will happen. The position remains that a person will be taken into custody by an officer. has to be released after six hours, and has to go before the court within 24 hours. If the person is released, is he on bail, it being an offence under the Bail Act 1976 not to return to court? Can conditions be imposed under the 1976 Act for someone to return to court the next day?
If 150 cases are to take place in one day, a serious handling problem will arise. If 150 defendants are to come before the court, their cases will not be handled in one court building or in 10. Does the Minister understand that dealing with such cases will require, on those dates, certainly 10 and possibly 20 acting or full-time stipendiary magistrates in court buildings that can take them.
What happens when one gets to court? Does the case automatically go ahead? What happens if the Crown—if it is the Crown—says, "We would like to put this off; our paperwork is not in order"? There could be a huge handling problem at our ports of exit in relation to detention and reference to court, which has not been discussed sufficiently.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Am I right in assuming that what will be required under the law is not just that people be brought before the court within four or six hours, their names read out in court and the cases adjourned, but that the court actually deal with them; otherwise the power of detention expires? That means that there would have to be a substantive hearing

Mr. Matins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think it is the case—I am trying to draw it from the Minister—that when the person appears before the court, that is the substantive hearing which is dealt with on the spot, rather than adjourned for a month; otherwise, one

would be in a state of complete chaos. Again, I want to know that the Minister has thought the matter through and that the nuts-and-bolts problems of mass exit from our ports over two or three days have been considered in terms of lack of staff, court space or detention space.
8.30 pm
My final point is important, although it is very much a Committee point. What will happen in ports where port authority police work? What will their role be? In Harwich, for example, the port authority police have certain functions and powers. How will those officers overlap with ordinary police officers in cases of this sort?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall try to speak briefly. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for, in effect, accepting amendment No. 28. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who tabled it with me, made it clear before putting his name to it that he would be here for a limited time this evening because of a longstanding constituency engagement.
The Government are accepting that an officer may detain an individual for only four to six hours with a view to bringing that individual before a court. As my hon. Friends have asked, should an individual be brought before the court on the say-so of an inspector, or should there be a warrant from a magistrate? That is a sensible question, and the answer is not easy. There are practical advantages—swiftness for one—in having a police officer undertake that function, but if it is done in summons to a warrant, it may be easier to hold the person until the court can hear the case.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) that there is a real danger of chaos in our courts and ports when the Act is put into operation. That is one reason why it is so sad that we are trying to rush the Bill through. Acceptable legislation can be crafted, although it is difficult to do so, but I doubt whether it can be done on the timetable before us and the other place. There is a real risk that we shall end up with an Act that is unworkable.
I shall discuss briefly whether this should be a criminal or civil process. Detention in order to bring someone before a court smacks much more of criminal than civil procedure. With respect, I ask the Home Office to reconsider that aspect. I am much comforted that the Home Office has indicated that it will accept, in a later amendment, that whatever the individual is accused of must constitute criminality. I am grateful for the effective acceptance of amendment No. 28, which will mean that someone can be brought before magistrates only on the basis of reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in proposed section 14B(2) of the Football Spectators Act 1989—that the person must have caused or contributed to violence or disorder—is met.
I wish to make two points of substance, on which I shall probably table amendments on Report. I shall probably go to the Public Bill Office to table those amendments during the next hour or two. First, it should not be possible for someone to be subject to an order of the court if the only basis for it is a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. 1 do not believe that it can be fair to place a football banning order on someone on the basis of a conviction that is out of date.
Secondly, there should be some time limit on the conduct that caused or contributed to violence or disorder. As I look around the Chamber with the deep respect in which I always hold Parliament, I expect that 98 per cent. of us—I do not discriminate on grounds of sex—have at some stage in our lives contributed to violence or disorder. There are no mirrors in the Chamber, but, if I saw one, I might find myself in that category.
The definition in proposed section 14B(2) is astonishingly wide. Happily, it is qualified by the proposal that actual criminality must be required. However, anyone who has been caught up in a football crowd that is becoming slightly out of hand will fall within the definition. Any ancient piece of video tape that showed them there, perhaps the worse for wear or a little merry, could be brought forward as evidence, and I am sure that there are many such tapes. That would be going too far and would be oppressive. Some time limit—five, seven or 10 years—should be established to keep the use of such evidence under control.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last two points. May I draw his attention to amendment No. 41, which deals with the spent conviction point, although I do not pretend that it is perfectly drafted?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. One of the problems with the time scale facing us is the difficulty of finding time to read the amendments and spot exactly how they fit into the tapestry of the Bill.
I welcome Government amendment No. 46, but must return to practicalities in the magistrates courts. Can the Minister explain how the process will work? Let us suppose that someone is arrested because an officer believes, because of that person's demeanour at the port or airport, that he is the kind of person likely to cause trouble and may well have a previous conviction. If the officer finds that the person does have a previous conviction—a relevant one, which all of us agree should cause the person to be brought before a court and banned—how will the person be kept available to the court once the six hours in which he may be held in detention has passed? What practical arrangements will be made? If, having been let out after six hours, a person may walk away or even board a later P&O ferry, the Act will fall into disrepute. I hope that a sensible answer can be found to that question, and I should be happy to co-operate with the Government in seeking one. For now, however, the position is not clear.

Ms Ward: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman studied the detail of schedule 1? New section 21B(2)(b) refers to what the notice may require of the person who has been detained. It states that the person would be required
not to leave England and Wales before that time—
and, under (2)(c), might be required
to surrender his passport to the constable.
That would take place before the person's appearance at a magistrates court.
Unless I misheard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not see how someone released after six hours, and before appearing at a magistrates court, could wander on to a ferry. Could he explain his point again?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Lady may have a good point, provided that there are enough police to spot what is happening. The individual certainly could not be detained in a cell after six hours on the basis of that provision. If there were enough police officers to keep such individuals under surveillance and to spot them making for a boat, and if they have been summonsed—

Ms Ward: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, under the provision to which I referred, they would be required to hand over their passports? After the six hours—whether or not they had been detained—they could not physically leave the country, because they would have no passport. It would also be an offence for them not to appear at the magistrates court. That would clearly be a further consideration for people who believed themselves innocent and wanted to prove that point.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: That may be correct. To take the passport may be the practical answer, but I should like to hear it from the Minister. I should like him to piece those points together to show that they produce a coherent whole. My objective is not to make clever points, but to try to ensure that we produce coherent legislation. The hon. Lady plays a useful role—at least in educating me—and I thank her for that.
Amendment No. 35, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would prevent repeated arrest and deserves careful consideration. The simple removal, under Government amendment No. 46, of a safeguard in the measure—the provision that someone could not be rearrested within 24 hours—could leave too little protection.
We are all struggling to achieve a balance so that the measure is workable and fair, but there are real difficulties. My main reason for speaking to the amendment was to highlight questions on spent convictions and time limits.

Mr. John McDonnell: I want to follow up the pragmatic approach taken by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and to seek some reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State on a constituency point.
Heathrow is in my constituency and a large number of people might be detained there at any one time under this measure. I have visited the facilities available there for the detention of suspects and others; they are extremely limited—at the most there are a dozen cells. It is thus possible that overspill detainees might be transferred to police stations in my constituency. That would require additional police resources to supervise the cells and to assist in processing the detainees to the magistrates court. Uxbridge magistrates court is also in my constituency.
I am anxious to obtain assurances that before we implement the legislation, there will be a full review of its resource implications in constituencies such as mine. It could be a significant drain on police resources that would have an impact on the ability of the police to tackle crime and disorder generally in my community

Mr. John Gummer: I am concerned because, if there is a need for sub-paragraph (4), it means that a considerable number of people would have to be apprehended under that provision. If it were to apply only occasionally, it is unlikely that we should be dealing with the matter in that way. The more people who come under that category, the more difficult it is to explain or to defend the whole procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) suggested.
We are in danger with this measure, because, as none of us like football hooligans and naturally want to stop them travelling abroad and lowering the reputation of our country, we start with the assumption that the Home Secretary must be right in trying to find an answer to the problem. However, many of us are concerned that he has found not one answer, but several. After each successive attempt to find the right answer, he has found that his previous answer was wrong.
It is not possible to believe that, if a period of 24 hours was considered essential three days ago, a period of four hours, with a possible extension to six hours has now become practicable. I suspect that it has not. I suspect that the Home Secretary has discovered that perfectly reasonable, decent, sensible, law-abiding, non-hooligan Members of the House recognise that detention for 24 hours is intolerable if it takes place because a constable believes that someone may have done something in the past that does not—or will not until the Bill is amended—constitute criminality or may in future do something that does not constitute criminality, but that may contribute to violence or disorder.
8.45 pm
If we bring the period down to four hours, we shall face the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised. At places where we expect large numbers of people to congregate to go to a match abroad, we shall need not only large numbers of police officers but new arrangements for magistrates to operate. I do not believe that there will be all those policemen or the arrangements for the magistrates. The provision will not work. The same people will return to the same ports and travel abroad to make the same row and the Home Secretary will return to the House and say, "I am frightfully sorry. I did my best, but the provision did not work." That is what worries me about this clause.
The House appears to be saying that there is a problem for which there must be an answer. Any answer will do—the period can change from 24 hours to 4 hours—because if we do not have an answer, people will say that we are not doing our job. However, the worst job that we can possibly do is produce an answer that we know will not work just because we think that we must do something.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: If one reads the Bill, one might imagine that the court procedures will take five minutes. However, court procedures with the opportunity, I assume, of some form of representation for those brought before the court are likely to take days. Individual cases will take hours and, if they are not resolved in that period, they may take days, with adjournments, so that the necessary evidence may be adduced.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because that might happen, the tendency will be to treat

such cases like speeding offences. It does not matter whether one gets the cases wrong because the important point is to get them through. The provisions in the Bill are serious because I fear that local magistrates will have no alternative but to proceed at a pace that does not fairly give people an opportunity to ensure that they put their case and are heard properly. Magistrates will be tempted to think, "I'm sure this officer is doing the best thing. Indeed, if I do not accept that, I shall undermine an important provision that is necessary if the reputation of my country is to be defended."

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The implications are that if someone cannot be brought before the magistrates within 24 hours—a notice being served after he has been held by a police officer for four or six hours—he is bound to be released. That will discredit the earlier part of the process and, in reality, many people will probably be in that category.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not only right, but does not go far enough. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of the clause is that the constable may give the person a notice in writing that requires that person to do several things and the constable can take the passport away. In the debates on Second Reading and in those held so far today, we have not been clear enough about what that would mean. Passports are not granted through the grace of Governments, but are owned by citizens as the result of their being a citizen of the European Union and the British Isles.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment. I want to restate that that is an important issue. Taking away someone's passport is not a mere passing matter, and the House should be extremely concerned if they cannot get it back because the process takes longer than the period that we are discussing. I am not sure to which boiling pot on which side of the House I should give way, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) first and then the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward).

Mr. Simon Burns: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has recently looked at page 3 of his passport, which states that the passport is the property of Her Majesty's Government and that an individual may keep it only as long as Her Majesty's Government wants him or her to.

Mr. Gummer: I have certainly read that, but I am also aware of the fact that, in this country, we have always felt that the passport is a disagreeable necessity which is required because other people tend to stop our citizens if they are unable to present one. One does not need a passport, which is just a convenience for making sure that one does not get stopped. It is true that, in this House, we have always felt that the passport is a matter not of grace, but of right. I do not wish the provision to undermine that fundamental belief, which is why the amendments are crucial to ensure that the Bill is not a pain.

Ms Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are already precedents in law for the removal of


passports that may not relate to criminal convictions? For example, a court can remove a passport on the basis of a bail condition or in relation to a feared child abduction. Under existing law, courts have the power to remove a passport under football banning orders. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a passport cannot be taken away, but it can be removed under certain circumstances.

Mr. Gummer: Not for the first time, the hon. Lady has mistaken the position. She referred to occasions on which the courts remove passports. We are considering a position in which policemen remove passports. I am merely saying that if one holds a passport as a matter of right and importance, taking it away is of considerable concern, and I want due process of law. If one follows the matter through, the court will not be in a position to undertake such action within the reasonable period to which the Minister referred.
The Minister is trying to get there, and has spent a lot of time altering his first thoughts to second, third and fourth thoughts, but he is not there yet. At the moment, if the power is to be used sensibly, it will have to be used for more than the occasional person. It could be used for a significant number of people—after all, we were talking about 300, 400 or 500 people being sent back, let alone the ones who were prevented from going out—and the numbers that we talked about when discussing the reasons for this rushed legislation lead us to believe that there will be many people in one place and the courts and the police will not be able to deal with them. The provision is therefore not tolerable unless there is significant alteration.
Unusually, I find myself in some sympathy with the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, who do not normally table amendments for which I have any sympathy and, of course, they belong to a party with which it is difficult to sympathise.
On this occasion, however, as must be true in the random nature of life, they have hit on something closer to truth than is their habit. They have suggested that it would be a good idea if we did not introduce the Bill in this way but went away and thought about it again.
We have suggested a number of ways in which we could do that, such as having a small gap between the different stages in this House. We were told, rather unconvincingly, by the Home Secretary that he had had a few words with people and they thought that it could not be done. Well, they ought to have found a way of doing it. I worked out the number of days, and it is perfectly possible to do it. There is no reason why the Government should not have given us more time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out. We are subject to the disagreeable necessity of asking the Home Secretary whether, given that by his own admittance he has got the legislation wrong several times in a short period, he should not give himself the benefit of the doubt and allow himself more time to think about it.
I do not want to be churlish to the Home Secretary because it is kind of him to have given way on a number of issues, although he probably did so because he realised that he was wrong. That is why I want to argue with his position on the amendments, particularly those that my right hon. Friend has said that she may press if he does

not give her a better answer. We can argue about parties disagreeing on amendments and about Members being in favour of guillotines when they are in government and against them when they are in opposition, but sometimes the Opposition are trying to help the Government. On this occasion, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats wish to help the Government to avoid getting themselves in a pickle, and no doubt the Welsh nationalists, Ulster Unionists and others would share that wish if they were here.
I remember that, from time to time, the previous Government tabled legislation that had the universal support of the House. If anyone asked them whether they were quite sure that it was right, they said that it must be right because everybody wanted it. I have been in the House for about 25 years and I have come to suspect any proposal that everybody seems to be happy with. I find that the press are very happy with a measure until they start to wonder whether it would not be better to do something else, which they start to do the moment that something goes wrong.
I end with a message to the Minister which I hope he will pass on to the Home Secretary. The worst task in the House is that of the Minister who has to defend actions that were popular when proposed but which turn out to be a disaster. All those people who supported him when he proposed the measures do not turn up, and the only ones present are people such as my hon. Friends. We will all turn up and tell the Minister, "I told you so. We tried to be helpful and you didn't listen to us."
I simply say to the Minister that it would do the Government good to step back and give themselves more time by accepting amendments such as those in the names of my hon. Friends and of Liberal Democrat Members. I suppose, therefore, that I hope that they will not accept them, because obviously they will get in a mess and I ought to be pleased that they will be in yet another mess—they are getting into a mess most of the time. On this occasion, however, I must try to help the Government simply because this is not a trivial matter but one of considerable importance.
I have young sons, and many hon. Members have young sons and daughters who, with their friends, could so easily and quite innocently be affected by the Bill, and their first brush with the law should not be in circumstances so ill conceived, ill thought through and badly drafted as the fourth proposal in the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again, even though if they do not, I suppose that we might have a drink on the fact that within six months they will feel very silly indeed and wish that they had listened.

9 pm

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Having spoken on Second Reading and from listening to the debate in Committee so far, I think that we have not only improved the Bill but are significantly continuing to do so. That should make us all proud of the procedures that we are adopting. As we saw, dialogue, debate and discussion between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), led to considerable improvement. Such constructive dialogue and opposition is the House working at its best.
I want specifically to speak against Liberal Democrat amendment No. 20, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke,


which would delete the fourth option. I want to address the point that he made—and made well, although I fundamentally disagree with it. It is a very important point for the Committee to consider. I made the point on Second Reading and do so again under the amendment.
With such legislation, there is always a clash between public interest and individual liberty. Law in general often infringes the rights of individuals to pursue their actions or freedoms without constraint. We do not allow people so to behave because we believe that, for the common good, in the public interest, there must be certain constraints on the actions and freedoms of individuals. We therefore legislate on different issues to constrain individuals. We have one such piece of legislation before us.
The Bill is about how we as a Parliament and a Government consider the problem of football hooliganism and deal with it. We have the serious problem of a number of individuals who are exercising their freedoms in a way that impacts on the law-abiding majority not only in this country but in other countries. That presents us with the difficult question of whether, because such people are infringing the rights of the majority—the rights of the majority of those conducting business, of countless families to enjoy football matches or go abroad without feeling harassed, and of huge numbers of people to feel free from fear—a limited number of individuals should forfeit some rights that we would normally wish to convey to them.
I think that the honest answer to that question is yes. Although the majority of people in this country would not wish their Government to legislate for the fourth option, I think that they would reluctantly conclude that, if the law is not to fall into disrepute, it must deal with the unacceptable behaviour that they have seen and the awful way in which some people have abused their freedoms.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a very clear point, but would he take it to this conclusion: that it is justifiable for some people who are innocent either to have their liberties taken away or to be convicted, rather than that some people who are guilty should be let off? The existing criminal process always tends to let off some of the guilty rather than convict some of the innocent. Which side of that line does he fall?

Mr. Coaker: My point is that we have to curtail the individual liberty of some to protect the liberties of the many. That is why I support the fourth option—not because it will be popular or because it is something in which we can glory, but because it is a measure that people feel is necessary if we are to protect the law-abiding majority.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman could be assured that everyone made subject to the Bill will be guilty, the views he expresses would be perfectly right, but our concern is that the Bill will result in large numbers of people who are not guilty finding themselves subject to a process that will be extremely damaging to them, and that they will have few means of averting that damage.

Mr. Coaker: First, I do not believe that the number of people will necessarily be large; and, secondly, the police

will ultimately have to take individuals involved before the courts. Any law has the potential to affect individuals who are accused of doing something that they have not done, or who have not done anything wrong.
My point is that I believe that the majority of people in this country feel that it is necessary for Parliament to reflect their concern about the way in which some so-called football supporters conduct themselves. They believe that Parliament needs to act. I believe that the majority of people outside and inside the House accept the necessity of our taking actions that, in an ideal world, we would not want to take. In other words, the curtailment of the liberty of some individuals is necessary if the law-abiding majority is to be protected. If the law fails to protect the majority who conform to it, that brings the law into disrepute.
Of course, the individual must be protected under the law and we must respect people's rights, but we cannot do that at the expense of public disorder, which flies in the face of the public interest. We cannot allow the law-abiding majority to feel that their rights are being usurped and that the rights of those who do not respect the law are being put before theirs.

Mr. Roger Gale: My name appears above the lead amendment, along with that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to press it to a Division, I shall support it, and I shall outline the reasons why.
I am especially glad to have waited long enough to be speaking after the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), because he has, inadvertently, articulated all my fears. Those fears were mentioned the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and no one doubts that he has worked extremely hard to respond to those issues. The hon. Gentleman has, in effect, echoed something that my hon. Friend said on Second Reading: that, in the interests of the greater good, the liberties of a few may need to be curtailed.
I represent a constituency in east Kent—one of those constituencies that is closest to the continent; one of those constituencies with greatest access to the channel ports of Ramsgate, Dover and Folkestone, and to Le Shuttle; one of those areas where the innocent law-abiding citizens are extremely likely to be affected by the legislation. Those are not, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Gedling, the minority. They are the majority.
Thousands of people travel daily through the port of Dover, and millions of people travel annually through the south coast ports. Most of them are law-abiding citizens, with no convictions in any court anywhere in the world, going about their lawful business. Under the Bill, those people are just as likely to be picked up as those whom the Home Secretary described as going abroad with a view to causing trouble. Unless we issue the Kent constabulary with crystal balls, I do not see how those policemen are to distinguish one from the other.

Ms Ward: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a large majority of his constituents act in a way that might reasonably be considered to arouse the suspicion that they will cause disorder or behave violently, or that


they have convictions for violence in the past. Is he suggesting that a large majority or all of his constituents, as I understood him to say, fall into that category?

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she leads me to my next point. During the timetable debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) suggested that although the Bill is supposed to deal with football hooligans, the overwhelming majority of people travelling across the channel during potential closed seasons, which the Bill will introduce, are not going anywhere near a football match and have no desire to do so.
Those people are travelling from all over the south coast of England and beyond, from London and East Anglia, to spend a couple of days across the channel, to go shopping in Cité de l' Europe or Océan or wherever, to buy their duty-free goods and put our traders in east Kent out of business. That, at present, is their lawful right. They have nothing at all to do with football.
Having travelled frequently on channel ferries, I can say, and the hon. Lady may agree, that not all those travellers are endearingly attractive. One or two, on the passage out and on the passage back, have been known to consume alcohol. It is just possible that some of them may attract the eye of Mr. Plod.
The Bill places on the Kent constabulary a duty somehow to discern the day-trip traveller, the two-day traveller, the person visiting northern France, and others who may or may not be going to a football match, some of whom may or may not have an aura about them that suggests unpleasantness.
The Home Secretary said at the Dispatch Box earlier that the Bill would give the police powers to apprehend and detain people who had no convictions. As I said, I am not sure how the police will work that one out. The other night the Home Secretary told the House that of 950-odd people arrested during Euro 2000, only about half had criminal convictions. Therefore, he said, we need to control the others who had no previous convictions, implying that all the people who had been pulled in by the police were guilty—of what? It is of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and, as a result, under the Bill, having a stain on their character that could lead to their being pulled in by the police next time they wanted to go abroad.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman should not create a largely mythical monster against which he can rail. I do not understand his point; perhaps he can explain it. Why does he believe that police officers would detain large numbers of people? The Bill does not require them to pick up large numbers. The hon. Gentleman should also answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) made. What makes him believe that large numbers of people would be caught? If many people were detained by a police officer, what would be the impact on them? If they were innocent, they would not end up with a criminal record.

Mr. Gale: For good reasons, of which I am aware, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke about likely numbers. We were considering the possibility of

400 people being apprehended. If the Bill is of any value, which I doubt, and each of the 400, some of whom may be on a day trip and thus have their entire day ruined, is detained for up to six hours—

Mr. Gummer: If not many people are apprehended, and mayhem ensues in some football match abroad, will not the public demand, "Why were not more people stopped?" It would be almost impossible thereafter for the police not to stop more people. That will continue until The Sun suddenly decides that it is on the wrong side, and twists right round and tells us that we have dealt with the rights of the individual in a cavalier manner. That will happen, and my hon. Friend should say so.

Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is right. The police are between a rock and a hard place. They will either pull people in, which entails the great danger of pulling in people who should not be apprehended, or they will not, and be blamed the moment another riot occurs abroad. I am concerned on behalf of the Kent constabulary. Neither the chief constable nor any other Kent policeman has said to me, "Roger, this is a wonderful Bill. You've got to get behind it because it gives us a power that we've really been waiting for." Not one police officer has said that.

Mr. Burns: I wonder whether the chief constable of Kent, or any Kent police officer, has approached my hon. Friend to say that the Bill is dreadful and to ask him to stop it.

Mr. Peter Lilley: They have had no time.

Mr. Gale: As my right hon. Friend says, there has been no time. It is significant that the police have not woken up to the fact that, as well as policing economic migrants and contraband goods, they will be lumbered with deciding who should be detained under the powers that the Bill gives them.
I do not like the blackmail that always accompanies measures such as the Bill: the assumption-which minor, share—dealing tabloid editors will pick up—that anyone who does not support the measure is soft on football hooliganism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) clearly said that we would support any Bill that reasonably tackles football hooliganism. However, the Bill does not tackle it because it has no writ north of the border or in Northern Ireland.
The Bill is holed below the waterline before it has even been launched. Anyone who is seriously intent on making trouble will not go with the innocent through Dover, Folkestone or via Le Shuttle; they will go where they know that they will not be stopped. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is an expert on the subject and has frequently said that we are considering organised hooliganism. It is folly to believe that people who are so organised that they carry briefcases and wear pinstripe suits will not travel through Glasgow, Edinburgh or Belfast. Meanwhile, those who use our ports in Kent will pick up the wreckage of a bad measure.
I shall go with the Home Secretary on the Bill's initial provisions, which we can all support, but when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey presses the amendment to a Division, as I trust he will, I shall support it. It will take the rotten guts out of a bad Bill.

Mr. Hancock: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke with conviction and referred to a Minister having to return to these matters; he seemed to be speaking from personal experience. Ministers should take careful note of what he said might happen because there was more than a true word in his comments. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) began to explore the scenarios that might arise not only in Kent, but in other parts of the south of England and elsewhere. Heathrow is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), and he made a similar point. I represent another port of entry to, or exit from, the United Kingdom.
Let us consider the scenario of a weekend game being played in France. Let us start in London. Eurostar trains leave Waterloo at the rate of one an hour throughout the day and, on the way, stop in Kent—the county of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Policemen would be needed at Eurostar in Waterloo and at Ashford International. Let us consider the ferry ports. People would be needed at Ramsgate as ferries go from there to Dunkirk. There are dozens of ferries a day from Dover, all of which would have to be manned by policemen. The same applies at Folkestone and, a little further along the south coast, at Portsmouth.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Newhaven is on the way.

Mr. Hancock: Ferries do not currently operate from Newhaven, but I hope that they will return in time. Up to 12 ferries a day regularly travel from my constituency to four ports of entry in France. Ferries also cross to France from Poole, which is a little further along the coast. All those sites will have to be manned.
Three shuttle trains leave this country every hour. I have often travelled on Le Shuttle and have seen perhaps 30 transit vans on some trains. Most of the people in them are going over to France to buy booze, but I suspect that, in future, they will be full of people who want to watch football matches. Every car and person will presumably have to checked.
If policemen had to be at all those ports during the three or four days leading up to a match, an enormous strain would be put on the resources of the police forces of Hampshire and Kent and on the Metropolitan police to ensure that all those trains, ships and cars were properly inspected; otherwise the law would be unfair: it would not operate universally.
Let us consider what could happen if a policeman were to detain someone—the point made by hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). If a policeman had reason to believe that someone was worthy of detention, what would happen at that moment? Would the policeman have to spend a considerable time with that person? Would he have to take the person to a place where he can be detained, perhaps in a room somewhere at the port, which would have to be manned by other policemen who would ensure that the paperwork would be done? Would the policeman then simply return to his place at the front of the queue to look for other people, or would there be other policemen waiting to fill his place so that the process could continue, ensuring that people were properly checked?
How will the selection process take place? Obviously, the police will use their network of sources, and those sources will point out known offenders who have not got

convictions. Will those people be put on the list and identified? At least a dozen ports and airports would have to be covered by that process and policemen throughout the country would have to be briefed extensively over a long period to ensure that they picked out the right people.
Let us suppose that a busload of football supporters turned up wearing their England jerseys, jeans and sneakers with their jumpers tied around their waists, and they had all drunk a can of beer on the way to the port. The policeman would say, "I have a reasonable belief that one of you 30 could be a problem on the other side." What would happen to the other 29? What judgment would the policeman exercise? Would the passengers all have to get off the coach at Le Shuttle, although that does not have to happen at present? Would the other 29 be paraded in front of the Kent constabulary and would those who look more suspect than the others be picked out? That would be nonsensical.

Mr. Browne: Again, I seek clarification. In Scotland, drinking in a coach on the way to a sporting event is a criminal offence. Is it not an offence in England and Wales?

Mr. Hancock: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has the better of me. I am not sure whether that is a criminal offence in England, but no doubt the Minister will put us right. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have passed or travelled on many a coach on which a can or two has been taken. The provision would open the door to all sorts of scenarios that would be difficult to police, difficult to control and difficult to resource.

Ms Ward: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, that is an offence under English law, as it is under Scottish law.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Lady once again refers to sporting events, but people may be travelling abroad on a coach for another purpose. Presumably that would not be covered.

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman must not criticise the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), because his story involved people in football strips wearing jeans, sneakers and sweat shirts around their waists. People do not usually go shopping dressed like that. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do!"] One or two perhaps, but not 30 on a coach.

Mr. Hancock: If the hon. Gentleman represented a city with a football culture, he would have seen many people shopping, going to church or doing myriad things in a football strip.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is changing the scenario to suit his speech, which is all over the place. There will not be as many difficulties as he makes out. The provision would be used at designated times—not at any time during the year—when the England team played abroad. If he has travelled with English—

Mr. Hancock: I have.

Mr. Banks: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is not difficult to spot people who sing "No surrender


to the IRA" as they are usually abusive, plastered out of their minds and shouting racist comments at airports or ports of exit. There will not be as many difficulties as he suggests to the Committee.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to thousands of supporters who go to matches, sing, enjoy themselves, have a drink and do not cause problems. Many Members have tried to explain to the Government that they still have time to address that issue. They have already moved considerably.

Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has given the game away? If the provision were confined to those who behave as he describes, we would have no problem with it. However, it does not so confine itself, which is why we are in this mess.

Mr. Hancock: I could not agree more. Many Members who under previous Governments held high office in Departments dealing with the law have experienced the difficulties of hastily conceived legislation—and paid the price. They had to try to dig their way out trouble after the legislation was passed. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said why he supported the Bill. Those who have been to a football match or travelled with their team or the national side know that events do not take place over 24 hours. People travel to away internationals over three or four days, using different modes of transport, and arrive at grounds at different times. Some stay for a long time afterwards.
9.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman described hooliganism and explained why we should do something about it. I have been at football matches in this country and abroad, and have been subjected to the worst side of hooliganism next to me, across the terrace from me and across the other side of the pitch. As a city councillor in Portsmouth, I represent the area where the football ground is located. For 30 years I have represented people who for long periods were victimised by football hooligans who thought nothing of throwing a dustbin through the front door or window of a flat-fronted terraced house as a passing gesture on their way home, simply because Portsmouth had done their team on the park that afternoon. That happened week after week. I understand the problem, and I want something done about it.
I want resources to be provided so that we can achieve what we are trying to do. It is sometimes difficult to police football matches properly, because the police are hard pressed and the clubs do not want to pay the cost of policing. Hon. Members who have raised the issue of resources are dead right.
We want to ensure that the police officers who make the initial stop are fully able to do their part of the job within the law—that is, they must have good reason. In the four-hour process, when does the clock start ticking? Is it the minute the policeman stops the person, or the minute the person is in a place where he can no longer exercise free will and has been removed from the port, airport or train station? Those questions must be answered tonight.
I doubt whether, at 12 o'clock when we finish the Committee stage, any Member or Minister, including the Home Secretary, could honestly report to the House what the Bill can do. The Minister will report that we have been through the Committee stage and have amended the Bill. What does the Bill do, and what does it not do? The Home Secretary was honest enough to say that between Thursday and Monday he had changed his mind and accepted that there were some good ideas about how the Bill could be amended. The amendments offer him the opportunity to go that little bit further. They do not say, "Come back at a later stage when you have got it right." They say, "For goodness sake get it right. Get three quarters of the Bill, do what most of us want to do, but if you are going the whole hog, ensure that the system is robust enough to stand the test of time, that it can be resourced properly and that it can deliver what the nation expects." A good headline tomorrow will not be sufficient to prevent trouble in September.

Mr. Lilley: I shall make clear what I am in favour of before I explain what I am against. I have no objection in principle to banning orders that prevent people from attending domestic or foreign football matches if that is part of the punishment for a criminal offence of which they have been convicted. I have no objection to giving the constabulary the powers to enforce such banning orders, and ensuring that they can do so effectively and efficiently. However, the Bill goes far further than that, and some of the amendments would rein it back. I favour amendments that try to restrict the powers of the police to enforcing bans on those who are convicted of criminal offences from attending football matches, either here or abroad, as part of their punishment or as a consequence of their criminal conviction.
Before amendment No. 42 was tabled, the Bill referred, as a ground for restricting the movement of someone through the ports, to behaviour of the person present before the constable. If a person is behaving in the port, or on the way to it, in a manner which constitutes a criminal offence—for example, if he is behaving in a drunk and disorderly fashion, committing a breach of the peace or indulging in racial incitement—the constabulary already have the powers to charge that person with an offence. They do not need any special powers. Just the process of charging and arresting them will stop those people going abroad and, in effect, will prevent them from attending the football match.
If those concerned are doing something which is not a criminal offence—they may be a bit merry, raucous or rowdy—it is hard to say that they should be prevented from travelling further to the football match. One is effectively reducing the level of offence if one gives the powers to the police to stop people going to a football match when they are not doing anything which, in itself, is a criminal offence.
If amendment No. 42 is accepted, reference to the behaviour of a person before the constable is omitted and ceases to be the primary consideration in determining whether the constable should detain them. The amendment would mean that if a constable in uniform had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent had at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, the constable could detain that person in his custody.
There seem to be five possible circumstances in which the constable could subsequently be justified—and the magistrates court could conclude—that the person detained had caused or contributed to any violence or disorder. The first is if they could show that the person had been charged and convicted of a crime that would be relevant to the circumstances of travelling to a football match. I would have no objection, in such circumstances, if the banning order were part of the punishment. However, if we are to add retrospectively to the punishment of people who, in the past, have been guilty of crimes, we will be guilty of retrospection and double jeopardy.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) asked, what if the previous offence's time had expired? In general, if a person has been charged and convicted of a crime, it is perfectly reasonable that he should have restrictions imposed on his right to attend football matches.
The second circumstance might be if the person has been charged with a crime, but not convicted. Are we saying that, in such circumstances, the constable would be reasonable in detaining the person—and the magistrates would subsequently be able to prevent them from travelling—because, under a lesser, civil burden of proof, the magistrates might think that although the person was acquitted on a criminal charge, there was a reasonable basis for thinking that they were reasonably guilty and, therefore, that we should stop them going? Is that what the Home Secretary is saying?
The third circumstance might be if the person had been arrested for something that constituted a criminal offence, but had never even been charged with it. Are we now to say that as an arrest took place, there must have been reasonable grounds for thinking that the person committed that offence and that he is responsible for causing or contributing to violence and disorder, so we will stop him? It is an enormous step in our law—that merely having been arrested for something can be a cause for having one's liberties restricted. The Home Secretary referred to the 965 people who had been arrested—but only one charged and convicted—by the Belgian police. The Bill specifically says that an arrest that is not even made by a British authority can constitute a reason for believing that the person has committed an offence of violence or disorder.
Fifthly, the person may be found to have caused acts of violence and disorder that are not in themselves crimes. The Bill specifically says that people can have their passports removed on the basis of acts that need not be a criminal offence anywhere in the world. It even says that they need not even themselves have caused the violence or disorder, but only have "contributed to" it—perhaps by being present or joining in the singing.

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend must labour that point. In 1961, I was one of the leaders of an anti-ugly march, protesting against an appalling building in Cambridge. If, on the edge of that march, there had been some disorder—and there was—I could evidently have "contributed to" it as one of the march's leaders. Is that a

sufficient reason for my being prevented, today, from going to a football match? That is precisely what the Bill allows.

Mr. Lilley: That is a very good point. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us what he means by "contributed to", as distinct from "caused". For example, if someone had organised a coach tour on which some people behaved in a thoroughly reprehensible manner, is he held to have contributed to the offence and will he be prevented from travelling to football matches? What if someone had contributed in his youth as a student organiser to events that turned a bit unruly, and possibly at which an excessive amount of drink was consumed?
It is pretty offensive that we should be introducing to the law of our land the right of the constable to detain and of the courts to restrict the liberties of people who have done something that falls short of being proven a crime. What is most reprehensible of all is that the Bill allows the magistrates to double-guess, on a lower standard of proof, people who have previously been charged and not convicted, or even merely been arrested and not charged, and take that as evidence that they were guilty of an offence. That is bad not only for the individuals whose liberty may be infringed but for respect for the law, as doubt is cast on the conclusions of the courts and the forces of law and order.
For all those reasons, I strongly support the widest of the amendments, which would comprehensively remove the offensive aspects of the Bill. I also support the narrower amendments. I do not want us to be reduced to the converse of the famous anti-Australian story that causes such offence to my Australian relatives, about the chap who arrived in Australia without a visa. Immigration officials asked him all sorts of tedious questions about his place of birth and his mother's maiden name, and he got more and more irritated, so that when they asked whether he had any criminal convictions, he unwisely said, "I didn't realise they were still required to get into Australia." Under the Bill, one does not even need a criminal conviction to be prevented from leaving the United Kingdom. That will give the last laugh to the Australians.
9.45 pm
I have some factual issues that I would like the Home Secretary to address on the amendments. How many people does he believe are likely to be affected, or are being targeted by the Bill? How many people do not have banning orders against them but are believed to be the sort of people whom we should stop going abroad to football matches because they might provoke the sort of disorder that we saw on our television screens occurring in Belgium, although not in Holland? How many of the people that the Home Secretary expects to fall within the ambit of the legislation are likely to be restricted from travelling not because of a previous conviction for a criminal offence, but because they have caused or contributed to violence at a lower level than would constitute a criminal offence?
I suspect that the Home Secretary will say that he does not know how many, but that legislation is necessary to stop all who might do such things. However, he was able to be quantitative when it came to justifying the Bill as a whole. He referred to the 965 people arrested in Charleroi


and the fact that 42 per cent. had a conviction. Earlier today, he said that the only reason the Bill was justified was the events in Charleroi. Before that, he claimed, one could not have predicted the need for the Bill. It is only because of those 965 people, 42 per cent. of whom had a conviction, that we are considering the Bill today.
I would like to know a little more about those convictions. What proportion had criminal convictions for violence? What proportion were for disorder and what proportion for motoring offences? The Home Secretary is not listening at the moment, but I hope that his officials will wake him up and ask him to tell us more about those 42 per cent. with some sort of conviction.

Mr. Straw: I am listening and I gave that information on Second Reading. It was the right hon. Gentleman who was not listening.

Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that I was not listening and I shall go back to the debate and find out whether the Home Secretary did tell us how many had motoring offences. Perhaps he can remember and remind those of us who were inattentive so that we have that fact, which he thought important enough to give us then, to consider now. If he does not remember it, perhaps he could withdraw his accusation that I am somehow reprehensible for forgetting it too. [Interruption.] It appears that the Home Secretary does not know, any more than I do.
If we took a random sample of football fans—not the general population—what proportion might we reasonably expect to have some sort of conviction?

Mr. Straw: On Second Reading, I said:
Of the 391—
that is the 42 per cent. with previous convictions—
133 had convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for possession of an offensive weapon and 122 for criminal damage. I stress that those convictions were, in the main, not football-related.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what is important information, which is why I wanted it before us now. That leads to my next point: how do those figures compare with those that might be found for a random sample of football fans? We heard on Second Reading that a surprisingly high proportion of the general population have some kind of conviction against them.

Mr. Gale: It is a pity that the Home Secretary did not continue his quotation. He also said that
97 per cent. of those arrested were not convicted or known football hooligans. That is of great importance in framing further legislative measures to tackle the phenomenon.—[Official Report, 13 July 200; Vol. 353, c. 1182.]
His assumption is clearly that those 97 per cent., unconvicted of any offence anywhere in the world, were guilty.

Mr. Lilley: Indeed, there was a presumption that on the balance of probabilities any one of those 965 was guilty of some offence because they had all been arrested by the Belgian authorities, even though 964 of them were never charged or convicted of any offence. I think that it is rather important for the Home Secretary to give the House information as to how many people will fall foul of the Bill if it targets only those whom he intends it to target.
The Home Secretary should also consider whether other people might fall foul of the Bill unintentionally. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said that not all ferry travellers were "entirely endearing" in their behaviour. I use the ferry to France at least six times a year, and my hon. Friend's description of some of my fellow passengers is correct. Under the influence of drink, some behave in a way that is a little too effusive, but they do not necessarily commit any criminal offence.
If the constabulary consider that those people are travelling to a football match, will they be detained and brought before a magistrate? How often could that happen? What harm might the fear of that action do to the relations between the police and the general public?
For those and other reasons, I hope that the various amendments restricting the excessive powers in the original Bill will be accepted today.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I wish to make three points in support of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. First, I see no mention in the Bill of the police being required to ask if people are going to a football match. That seems a basic point because otherwise they will have to guess where people are going.
Secondly, it has been suggested that alleged hooligans might leave the country via Scottish airports. If a Scot making a brief visit to England is detained by a policeman who thinks that he is a potential football hooligan, will the policeman be able to prevent the Scot from returning to his domicile in Scotland if there happens to be a football match somewhere in the area? That would not seem right.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) touched on my third point, which concerns the phrase
caused or contributed to any violence or disorder.
Many people innocently cause or contribute to disorder. Pop and rock groups cause an enormous amount of disorder. A policeman might reasonably assume that, because a rock group had caused riots in the past, they might do so again if they attended a football match. Would that group be prevented from going to the match?
Throughout history, from Helen of Troy onwards, attractive females have often caused disorder—wars, or something less. Will a lady who in the past has caused men to behave riotously be prevented from going to a football match where she may again cause such behaviour?

Mr. Banks: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He mentioned Helen of Troy and said that many wars had been caused by attractive women. May I test his historical knowledge and ask him to give the House a list of all the wars caused by attractive women? I thought most wars were caused by very ugly men.

Mr. Gorrie: My point was that one can quite innocently be the cause of violence. Helen of Troy misbehaved herself in leaving her husband, but she did not fight the war. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.
Suppose that the management or board of a football club was very unpopular and there had been riots at that club protesting against their incompetence. A policeman


might believe that there might be another riot if they went to a match and their team lost yet again. Should the policeman stop the management of the club going to the match? As for some of the more violent football players—whose conduct on the pitch is violent in the strict sense—the police may think that if they take part in the match there is liable to be trouble on or off the pitch. Should the police stop them going to the match?
An enthusiastic policeman who had read the Bill carefully and was on duty in Downing street might even believe, if he had looked at television coverage of Prime Minister's Question Time, that the Prime Minister had caused or contributed to disorder. If the policeman believed that Britain or the Prime Minister personally was very unpopular in the country to which the right hon. Gentleman was going for the match, he might believe that the Prime Minister could cause further disorder.

Ms Ward: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is managing to say all this with a straight face. Is he really suggesting that the Prime Minister or—I will be generous here—the Leader of the Opposition could be classed as potential football hooligans on the grounds of their conduct on a Wednesday afternoon? I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman is trying to amuse the House.

Mr. Gorrie: I am trying to illustrate the absurdity of the Bill's wording and the fact that people can innocently cause or contribute to violence or disorder. That is what the Bill says, and it leads to all sorts of absurdities.
I have great regard for the Prime Minister, and I am quite sure that he is not a football hooligan. However, the Bill will catch many people who are not football hooligans—that is my point.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), in trying to find absurd situations, has done the police no great service. We must be realistic. There is no way the police will stop all these people, ranging from the Prime Minister to attractive women, leaving the country on the grounds that they might cause an affray when they reach their destination. One must assume that police officers have a modicum of good sense even if the hon. Gentleman does not have much.

Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the hon. Gentleman said is a terrible slur on women, who in general are not the cause of violence at football matches and make up only a small part of the criminal population?

Mr. Banks: That is certainly true. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I doubt whether very many women have been included in the number of those arrested for football disorder or offences. One of the good things about football these days is the civilising presence of so many women and families at matches. We are trying to ensure that that happens when our supporters go abroad, when we have dealt with the problem of hooliganism at home.
To accept amendment No. 21 would be to destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. The police need these powers. People who understand about football hooliganism know that unless we have the powers to stop people travelling,

trying to deal with the export of hooliganism is bound to fail. Having said that, I am not certain that even this Bill will work in the way that we want, because I believe that there are enough hooligans or potential troublemakers who will see what we are doing as a bit of fun and will find ways around any legislation that we introduce. But that does not mean that we should not make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.

10 pm

Mr. Lilley: In a genuine spirit of inquiry, since I do not purport to know much about football hooliganism, may I ask why we need more severe powers to stop hooligans travelling abroad than we possess and have used domestically to reduce the incidence of hooliganism in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Banks: The answer to that is simple. The right hon. Gentleman should go to football matches more often. There have been improvements in the law, in policing and in stewarding inside football grounds. The clubs segregate supporters, the police stop supporters going into grounds if they are drunk and many other means have been used to deal with the problem at home. That is why we find it so perplexing when a problem largely dealt with here is exported abroad.
I do not suggest that there are any easy solutions. No one in the House says that. However, instead of Opposition Members—and some of my hon. Friends—popping up to say that all sorts of strange things may happen, they could acknowledge that we need to do much more than we are doing now. At times, I hear strange words coming from my own mouth: we must sometimes rely on the good sense of police officers at certain specified times to stop people travelling whom they genuinely suspect of being likely to cause trouble if they go abroad. As I said to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) a few moments ago, the problems we face are difficult, but not as difficult as some hon. Members are suggesting.

Mr. Hancock: When he was Minister for Sport, the hon. Gentleman made great play, particularly during the world cup, of not wanting English fans without tickets to travel to football matches abroad. Would he think it right for a police officer to ask a group of fans whether they had tickets for a game? If some did and some did not—and given that incidents abroad in the past have sometimes been caused by fans without tickets—would that be a good enough reason for the police not to allow a person to travel?

Mr. Banks: That could be a further piece of evidence that a police officer could use to detain an individual or group of people. Of course it could be that the people involved were not on their way to a football match. Clearly, the police officer would have to ask whether they were. Whether an individual chooses to tell the truth is another matter, but a police officer who was trying to ensure that someone did not travel could use several means to filter information so that he or she could feel reasonably confident that a particular individual should be detained for long enough to find out whether there was any further reason why a magistrate should prevent them from travelling.


We must give the police credit by believing that, at the times designated in the Bill, officers would be looking for potential football hooligans rather than for ordinary, decent, honest citizens who were not interested in football but were going to France for a day out. Why would a police officer make trouble for himself by scooping up large numbers of the constituents of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) just so that he could say that he had made his contribution to anti-hooliganism by arresting people trying to leave that area?

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. Many hours ago, when this debate began, the Home Secretary said that the purpose of the Bill was to catch people who were going abroad to make trouble. How the blazes can a Kent policeman know that someone is going abroad to make trouble? How can he know that until a person who probably had no intention of making trouble has been abroad, had too much to drink and made trouble?

Mr. Banks: I accept that that is a problem. The point is not that a police officer knows that someone will make trouble. How can he or she know what will happen in future? However, an officer can suspect that someone may cause trouble.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that, if the measure went wrong, Opposition Members could say, "We told you so". That could apply the other way round. If the amendment is accepted and if there is trouble because the powers provided for the police under the Bill have been removed, what will Opposition Members say? They will have removed from the Bill the one provision that would give the extra filter at the port of exit that police officers require to try to prevent from leaving the country those people who it is suspected might cause disorder.
Of course, the use of such powers is conditional. That is why it is so difficult to draw them up. However, it is worth taking the risk. That is the important point. Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends should realise that identification of troublemakers would not be as difficult as they seem to think. Many clubs keep lists of such people even though they do not have convictions. That information could be given to the police.
If the Bill is enacted, the police could use their discrimination and discernment, with information from other sources, to try to stop people travelling if they are likely to cause trouble.

Mr. McDonnell: As they did during the miners' strike.

Mr. Gale: The sus laws.

Mr. Banks: The measure is not sus law—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members should not make these interventions.

Mr. Banks: I must pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) about the miners' strike. My hon. Friend and I, and other people, ferried supplies to coalfields in Derbyshire. We were stopped regularly by the police—I do not know under which powers—and had to explain

what we were doing. I was offended by that because I was—and am—a law-abiding citizen. That might come as a surprise to some Opposition Members.
However, any law-abiding citizen who is stopped under this measure will not end up with a criminal record. There is sometimes a price that we have to pay as law-abiding citizens to stop those people who are intent on breaking the law, either in this or another country. I am prepared to pay that price.

Mr. Burns: In that context, should we not also remember that, if the measure does give rise to problems, there will be an annual review by the House—as there is for the prevention of terrorism Acts? The sunset clause also affords additional protection in case the legislation is not as ideal as we hope.

Mr. Banks: The sunset clause and the review are important, because if the measure is wrong, we can do something about it. Although I support the Bill because I have seen the damage that football hooliganism has done to our reputation all over the world, I point out to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this will not be the last time that we deal with the subject. This Bill is not the complete answer but I am sure that, if the Liberal amendment were accepted, there would be nothing in the Bill to prevent hooliganism abroad—[Interruption.] I am asked if I have read the amendment: of course I have.

Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the argument that the innocent have nothing to fear was also used to justify all the stop and search measures that were used so prejudicially against the black community in London?.

Mr. Banks: I did not say that the innocent have nothing to fear, because some innocent people will undoubtedly be caught by the legislation. There will be inconvenience. However, in this place, we have to draw lines—we have to decide on the issues. Although there are times when I would wholly agree with my hon. Friend's point about the use of sus laws to stop black youths in our community, I can also see a reason for the Bill. We have to draw lines. Sometimes we cross or fall short of a line, but we ultimately use our judgment. Our judgment may prove to be wrong.

Mr. McDonnell: It is not our judgment: it is a police officer's judgment.

Mr. Banks: It will be our judgment tonight and a police officer's judgment tomorrow. We will then see how the provision operates in practice. Tonight we must use our judgment alone, and my judgment says that this is a good Bill and that the amendment is a bad one.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents one point. Those of us who argue that we should remove this measure from the Bill would leave three of the other four measures in it. We would also give the other half of a two-Chamber Parliament a chance to do a much better job than the Government have so far done with this measure.

Mr. Banks: I understand that point. Obviously there is no argument about three of the measures in the Bill. This measure is the crucial one, and that is why we are spending so much time on it


To return to what I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), our judgment is as good as that of those in another place. Why do we not trust it? I trust our judgment and I trust my judgment on this point. I believe that we should pass the Bill tonight. If we get the Bill wrong, we shall test it against the reality of practice and change it if necessary.
We are dealing with people who will find their way around the legislation, but we must never give up. If we give up, they will make fools of all of us. Quite frankly, enough of us have already made fools of ourselves.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Banks: I was going to give way, but I have had enough.

Mr. Grieve: I had not originally intended to speak on this group of amendments, but the debate has developed with a genuine exchange of views. I have therefore been prompted to speak.
I have now had a chance to examine the Bill carefully and I think that some of the Bill's basic thrust on banning orders is misunderstood. It is interesting that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) seems to misunderstand aspects of that. Leaving aside the summary procedure to which I shall come shortly, it is clear that it will be a searching and ponderous procedure to secure a banning order against someone when it is not immediately linked to his being convicted by a court.
One only has to examine the procedures in schedule 1 to learn that the process will not take one, two or three hours; I suspect that, in some cases, it will involve a court case that will spread out over several days. That is even before we come to the process by which one goes to the Crown court on appeal. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is making suggestive gestures—that might be the best way of describing them—but he knows the reality.
A complaint will be made, a summons will be issued, an individual will be targeted and he will be told that, notwithstanding the fact that he is not standing trial for an offence, he will be brought before a court because the police have accumulated sufficient evidence that they consider to be valid to obtain a banning order against him. There will then be a substantial hearing. That hearing will take place—[Interruption.] I shall continue for as long as necessary to make the Home Secretary understand the importance of the point that has to be made. That procedure will take time and it will involve witnesses being called. Undoubtedly, character witnesses will be called for the person against whom the allegations are made and, if we are dealing with video evidence, I am sure that there will be issues of identity and a host of other problems.
Notwithstanding those points, I do not think that the procedure that the Home Secretary is introducing for banning orders for people against whom a complaint is made will in any way be unfair. I think that individuals will be targeted who have previously escaped conviction and on whom the courts can make an order and enforce it, which will be regarded as right. In view of that,

the summary procedure to bring someone before a magistrates court appears to be all the more remarkable, as it places on a police officer the burden of making a snap decision—it cannot have been made previously; otherwise someone would have gone off and sought a banning order—and applying it to a form of public order control on the spot. The two are not easily reconciled.
10.15 pm
Those who will have banning orders brought against them will be few in number. However, the summary procedure is being depicted as a measure that will result in large numbers of people being picked up at a port or place of exit from this country and prevented from leaving on a general hunch of the police, backed by a few hours of investigation. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will pay careful attention to amendment No. 9, which would at least require the intervention of a magistrate before such an order is made. He may also wish to consider carefully whether the summary procedure marries easily with the safeguards that he has introduced in the main procedure for getting the banning orders. I cannot help but think that, in reality, when such a situation arises the police will have to make on-the-spot decisions and will have plenty of time to repent at leisure as they subsequently discover that they have inhibited the exit from this country of those against whom they do not have sufficient evidence to obtain a banning order.

Mr. Straw: May I respond to some points that have been raised in our debate, which has gone on for three and a half hours and which, I hope, has been as helpful for the Committee as it has for me?
May I return the compliment to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who invited me to listen? I shall not follow up everything that he raised as, although I am sure that he had good reason for not being here earlier, I have been into considerable detail about the reasons for the orders. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the procedure will not be unfair. Whether it turns out to be ponderous depends on the nature of the court, but it is proper that it should be searching, as our courts established.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that a limited number of people will be processed under the civil procedure in the third part of the Bill, which allows me to answer in the negative the question asked by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) about whether I knew how many orders would be processed in the ensuing period. Of course the answer is that one cannot tell. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I suspect that how long a particular case takes depends, as in any other case in the civil or criminal courts, on the strength and complexity of the evidence. It does not follow that, in every case involving an individual who is subject to the civil process, he or she—although typically he—will resist the complaint or have much of a case to make in defence.
In situations in which it turns out that the application is founded on thin evidence or there is argument about identity, it is perfectly possible that proceedings may take some time. However, we have learned from the process for anti-social behaviour orders that as courts gained experience of the process, they obviously became more skilled in dealing with the matters before them.
In my opening remarks, I made the point at length that the summary power needs to be seen as supplementary to the core power, which involves obtaining a banning order by a civil process. It is to be hoped—the police have this hope—that, so far as possible, candidates for banning orders will be dealt with by the slower process of a normal complaint issued in the magistrates court, where, if a matter is adjourned for a week or so, it will not materially affect the risk that the individual poses.
There has also been much speculation about whether the police in Dover or any other port will be able to identify every person who will cause trouble abroad. Of course they will be unable to do that because, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, they are not clairvoyant. The Association of Chief Police Officers, superintendents and the National Criminal Intelligence Service strongly support both the powers because they believe that they will assist them in better controlling hooliganism.
I make it clear to the Committee that the Bill will not in itself end football hooliganism abroad any more than the Football Spectators Act 1989, which was the subject of a guillotine exactly 11 years ago today, led to an immediate reduction in football hooliganism in this country. Over time, however, the powers should greatly assist in reducing the threat of football hooliganism abroad.
There is another effect, which I point out in response to the hon. Member for North Thanet. There are people who would be intercepted by the police if better information were available, but at present they may slip through the cordon, go abroad and cause trouble. If there is evidence against them that we can use, it can retrospectively be brought into play to obtain a banning order by the slower process when they return to this country.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Earlier, I asked my right hon. Friend to explain what would be reasonable grounds on which a police officer might believe that an individual had caused or contributed to violence. He responded that provisions such as these are available in other legislation. He has dismissed the idea of tattoos or slogans on clothing being grounds for suspicion, so is it not clear that a police officer would require—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady's intervention is too long.

Dr. Jones: I was drawing my intervention to an end, Mr. Martin. Is it not clear that the police officer would have to have intelligence to have reasonable grounds for suspicion, and if that intelligence is available—this is the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was making—surely the proper procedure would be to use the other provisions for acquiring a banning order?.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has two worries. First, she is worried about whether the police will use the power arbitrarily. Secondly, she is concerned that if there is not good intelligence, which is normally inadmissible in a court because of its nature, but there is good evidence, that should be used to obtain a criminal conviction.
On the first point, we have in amendments Nos. 42 to 46 considerably narrowed the grounds on which the police can intercept someone, make inquiries of them, hold them

while their inquiries are taking place and issue them with a notice to attend court. Those grounds now parallel those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on reasonable suspicions and beliefs. The reasonable belief must be that if the person concerned is taken to court, which must happen within 24 hours, the court is likely to grant a banning order against them. That power is very constrained, and the police will not, except in very exceptional circumstances, misuse it because whether they have exercised it reasonably will be a matter of judgment within a court process that will begin 24 hours later.
My hon. Friend's other point raises the central issue of whether banning orders by the alternative route of civil process should be available. As she will notice from schedule 1 on page 10, banning orders by criminal process are available only where there are football-related convictions. We are proposing—it receives the general approbation of the three main parties—that there will be a basis for a banning order when there is evidence of someone's past involvement in violence or disorder, which typically will be convictions not for football-related offences but for violence, and when there are reasonable grounds for believing that if, for example, they go abroad, they will cause further violence or disorder around the football ground. I think that that will work fairly and proportionately.
I shall deal briefly with some of the other matters that have been raised. I understand, although I am afraid that I was not present to hear it, that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) asked about a power of arrest after a notice had been issued. That arises under proposed section 21B(5) if, in the opinion of the police officer, reasonable grounds make it necessary to arrest the individual in order that the notice is complied with.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have asked about the practicalities of the summary procedures. If grounds for detention under proposed section 21A are met, the constable may detain for immediate inquiry for a maximum of four hours on his own decision and up to six hours in total with the approval of an officer of the rank of inspector or above. As soon as a decision whether to issue a notice is reached, the person is either released, if it is decided that there are no grounds to issue a notice, or the notice is issued. The notice will contain conditions for the person to appear in court within 24 hours, not to leave England and Wales before then, and to surrender his passport if the offence relates to the control period. If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to ensure compliance with the condition of the notice, there is, as I have explained to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, a power of arrest. In other cases, the person will be released.
On appearance in court, the case may be dealt with immediately and dismissed or dealt with immediately and a banning order made. Alternatively, the court may adjourn the case and remand the person either in custody or on bail, as in normal circumstances. Bail may be subject to conditions not to leave the country and to surrender his passport.
I gather that a number of hon. Members asked for figures on the number of custody suites available and on the additional manpower required. There are custody suites all over the country and, obviously, provision will


be made proportionately, according to available police resources. That is always so because that, by definition, determines the amount of police activity.
Several questions have been raised about the 24-hour limit. We have consulted the Lord Chancellor's Department, and it believes that the 24-hour limit for a magistrates court hearing is doable. Plainly, it is in everyone's interest to get the individual into court as quickly as possible, and in under 24 hours if possible.

Sir Robert Smith: I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but I understand that a ban would at one point require someone not to leave England and Wales. I may be at the limits of testing the legislation, but if a resident of Scotland passes through an English port and is then suspected by the police, will that person be banned from returning to their home in Scotland?.

Mr. Straw: The legislation applies to United Kingdom citizens, who include residents of Scotland as well as of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. However, if the person happens to be a Scottish supporter, it is extremely unlikely that they will be caught up in the legislation. [Interruption.] I make a serious point; we have a good deal to learn in England from the behaviour of Scottish fans.

Mr. Malins: We understand that the Home Secretary is unable to cover every point that has been raised by Opposition Members, but, as many important points will remain unanswered at the end of the debate, will he undertake during the next week to send detailed written responses to those of us whose points have not been answered?.

Mr. Straw: I am happy to do so.

Mr. Gummer: Is the Home Secretary saying that, for the first time in British law, we are going to stop people going from England to Scotland? Even if it were to be invoked only rarely, that would constitute a real constitutional change. If that is what he is telling the Committee, he is putting before us an entirely new fact of considerable importance.

Mr. Straw: I do not believe that it is the first time in English law that people are to be required not to leave the jurisdiction—

Mr. Gummer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is often the case that people are required not to leave the jurisdiction for a certain period. I shall write to him if further inquiry into the matter proves me wrong on that.
We are dealing with new powers. By definition, any legislation passed by Parliament is new; if we never had to change things, we would never need to sit. They are new powers for new circumstances and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) pointed out, the

process of legislation involves speculation about the future. We have to use what intellectual and political resources we have to speculate as accurately as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) asked whether a person could be arrested more than once in the same 24-hour period. Plainly, it would be wrong to make repeated arrests to circumvent the time limit on the arrangements that we have provided, and we shall consider whether that should be made more explicit. However, I ask the Committee to consider the following case: the police intercept a person on his way to port X; they make inquiries of that person, but conclude that there are not sufficient grounds to serve him with a notice requiring him to go to court; that person then moves off to a different port and, at that port, more evidence emerges as a result of different police officers following different lines of inquiry; it is decided that there are good grounds to serve that individual with a notice; that individual is served with the notice and, in due course, the court endorses the banning order. I do not think that would be inappropriate police action, any more than it is inappropriate for the police to stop and search someone who has committed a crime but who has managed to evade detection in a previous stop and search. However, I accept that we need to ensure that there are provisions to prevent gratuitous exploitation in circumstances which, although unlikely, might arise.
Finally, I promised to address Opposition amendment No. 9, which would require a magistrates warrant rather than an inspector's authorisation before an officer could issue someone with a notice not to leave the country and to attend a magistrates court within 24 hours. Our judgment is that insisting on a magistrates warrant before notice is issued is likely to lead to longer delays and longer periods of detention by interposing another procedure between the initial decision to issue the notice and appearance in court. It would complicate matters and I am not sure that it would necessarily be welcomed by the magistracy. It would give magistrates summary powers of arrest and detention which, in our system, are typically given to the police, and then made the subject of proper adjudication by the courts.
I hope that I have dealt with the burden of the main issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I have explained the Government amendments and invited the withdrawal of Opposition amendments. I commend the Committee for a constructive debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If ever there were an argument for not going from Committee stage to Report without interruption, the past three and three quarter hours have made the case. Like the Home Secretary, I commend colleagues in all parts of the House—Scots and English colleagues—for making important contributions on various matters, demonstrating the need for us to proceed slowly and with caution if we are not to produce legislation that we will live to regret.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reminded us that although we can speak at length about the drafting, we are discussing real people—often young people—going on innocent journeys, who might find themselves face to face with the law.
That is why I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), with whom I often agree, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)


and the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who, in summary, argued that we must provide the powers so that when the authorities suspect people who, in the words of the hon. Member for West Ham, might cause the trouble, they can take their liberties away. That is not a view that we share.
The hon. Member for Gedling seemed to suggest that protecting the liberties of the many is sufficient justification for risking the liberties of the few. That is not the principle on which we have worked. Historically, we have been willing to let off the few in order to protect the liberties of the many. The hon. Member for Watford said that it was all about what people had done in the past. It is not; it is about what the police might think that people had done in the past, which is an entirely different question.
In a way, this is back-to-front legislation. We should have decided in what circumstances a ban is appropriate, decided whether a previous conviction should be the precondition of a ban, and then decided what power we wanted to give the authorities to detain people, with the prospect of a ban being imposed.
In their contributions, our two Scots colleagues, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) suggested that in some respects we could learn from Scotland, and that the Bill would benefit from the inclusion of those points.
My hon. Friends and I will shortly ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 20. The Committee has a straightforward choice between accepting the fourth power, amended as it may be by Government amendments, or deciding that there is now such a muddle and so many unanswered questions that it is better to take it out, not necessarily for ever, but until there is some agreement about what it might do, what it might mean, how it might be enacted and what the practical implications might be. I hope that in a few moments colleagues in all parts of the House, other than those who take the Government pay and are on the Government payroll vote, will join us and decide that we should not support the measure.
To address the question posed by the Home Secretary, of course there must be a power so that people can be apprehended and dealt with in the courts. However, we take the view that people should be apprehended in certain circumstances, and that it must be clear that they have a record of violence before the authorities have the power to detain them.
Although the police might have said in principle that they supported the Bill, one of the obvious outcomes of the debate is that if they had heard the questions raised by colleagues from the courts, I am not sure that they would have been at all happy, but there is no chance to ask the police or to speak to the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Police Superintendents Association. There is no chance to discuss with them the objections that have been raised.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) slightly misrepresented us. We think that amendment No. 33 is an improvement. We are in favour of amendment No. 37 being accepted, and we think that amendment No. 35 is worth considering. We entirely understand why she may want to move amendment No. 9 later in our oh-too-limited proceedings.
Four colleagues raised questions of practicality—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell).
Practicalities are as important as anything else. Will the courts and the police be able to handle the measure? We are not simply considering Euro 2000 or a world cup tournament, but every year's European cup or cup-winner's cup. The measure will be used regularly, and it will affect all the ports and airports. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, it contains a sweeping definition that covers anyone who might have been guilty of violence and disorder.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal reminded us that the Bill will take away not only a few hours' liberty, but people's passports and potentially their ability to travel abroad for many years. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) reminded us that it may be sufficient for someone to have contributed marginally to violence and disorder. Someone who was around the edges of, for example, a student demonstration or civil rights protest in the past could be picked up under the Bill. We do not claim that the police will necessarily intervene, but if they are in the front line and getting some grief, they will have the power to do so.
The choice for the Committee is whether we want to go along with such a Bill or whether we have a duty to say that we shall not make such legislation, that we cannot ignore the plethora of objections or risk people's liberties. When so many hon. Members from different parties have raised so many objections to what one colleague described as the tapestry of the Bill, I hope that the Committee will realise that we are not considering fiction but fact, and that we owe it to people to get the measure right. I hope that a great coalition, consisting of those who want to remove the provision and those who want to go back to the drawing board and start again, will support the amendment.
I hope that the Government realise that they cannot continue to legislate in such a manner. In the words of the hon. Member for West Ham, we have had enough.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 58, Noes 211.

Division No. 270]
[10.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fearn, Ronnie


Allan, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Baker, Norman
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ballard, Jackie
Gale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gidley, Sandra


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hancock, Mike


Brake, Tom
Harris, Dr Evan


Brand, Dr Peter
Harvey, Nick


Breed, Colin
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Burnett, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burstow, Paul
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Chidgey, David
Keetch, Paul


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Cotter, Brian



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leigh, Edward






Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Stunell, Andrew


MacIennan, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Moore, Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Oaten, Mark
Tyler, Paul


Öpik, Lembit
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David



Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Sir Robert Smith and


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Donald Gorrie.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Alexander, Douglas
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Allen, Graham
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Flint, Caroline


Banks, Tony
Follett, Barbara


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beard, Nigel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Godsiff, Roger


Best, Harold
Goggins, Paul


Betts, Clive
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blackman, Liz
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Blizzard, Bob
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grogan, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hain, Peter


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burden, Richard
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Burgon, Colin
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hesford, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hope, Phil


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbett, Robin
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cranston, Ross
Jamieson, David


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kemp, Fraser


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dalyell, Tam
Khabra, Piara S


Darvill, Keith
Kidney, David


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dawson, Hilton
Lammy, David


Dismore, Andrew
Lepper, David


Drew, David
Levitt, Tom


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAvoy, Thomas





McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm


Macdonald, Calum
Shaw, Jonathan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McNulty, Tony



MacShane, Denis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meale, Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stringer, Graham


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pollard, Kerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rapson, Syd
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Woolas, Phil


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Rowlands, Ted
Wyatt, Derek


Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Salter, Martin
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

SUPPLEMENTARY.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out from "under" to "may" in line 16 and insert "this Act".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Hughes: This will be a brief contribution, Mr. Martin. The amendments are about what procedure the House will retain for controlling orders that will be made under the Bill when it is enacted. On Thursday, the Home Secretary announced that he had accepted


representations from Opposition parties and outside that the Act should have a limited life of five years and that the controversial banning order and summary detention powers should be the subject of renewal orders. The renewal order provision needs a positive motion of the House to be confirmed and the summary detention order and the banning order require the House to be asked its view every year.
The amendments seek to make sure that all the orders that come under the Bill are covered by the affirmative order procedure. The other day, I put it to the Home Secretary that the powers that he has reserved to himself in clause 3 are Henry VIII powers. He said that they were not; they were Edward II powers—puny little extras which allow the Home Secretary to do little things at the edges. I am prepared to go halfway; they may have to be tied to the Bill, which refers to
supplementary, incidental or consequential…transitory, transitional or saving
provisions. Some could be persuaded that those provisions could go quite wide if one wanted them to.
There are certain things that we hope are included. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues have referred to the power to make provisions for compensation, legal aid and other things. That would be consequential, so we want to make sure that there are powers available. The general principle is that we ought to have the ability to have a debate on a Bill that is clearly controversial and it ought not to be left to the rather uncertain negative resolution procedures of the House as to whether or not the orders renewing the controversial parts of the Bill are passed by the two Houses.
Amendment No. 24 would sweep the whole Act into the affirmative resolution procedure, while amendment No. 25 takes out the exception so that the rest of the matters that are not specifically provided for would be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. The amendments go together, and they are straightforward. I can indicate now that we do not propose to divide the Committee on this matter. I hope that the Government will be positive and will give us one generic piece of information. What do they intend to use the power for? What powers will have to be introduced? If the Minister is as helpful as possible about that, it will alleviate some of the concerns.

11 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The powers invested in the Secretary of State to make orders under the Bill are limited to "supplementary, incidental or consequential" provisions. Such powers are well precedented, for example in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and the recent Greater London Authority Act 1999. The Bill already requires the affirmative resolution procedure for any amendment to primary legislation and for any order extending the life of the powers under new sections 14B, 21A and 21B.
In accordance with the precedents that I mentioned, other amendments to secondary legislation can perfectly appropriately be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure, which ensures adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Among the matters that may be dealt with by such secondary legislation is the legal aid entitlement of persons issued with a notice to appear before a magistrates court.
For those reasons, the Government are resisting the amendment. I appreciate the motives behind it, but we believe that our approach in the Bill should be similar and equivalent to the way in which we have dealt with these issues in other legislation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister say, off the cuff, whether there are also precedents for allowing the affirmative resolution procedure for amending secondary legislation?.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that there are precedents, but I cannot give them off the cuff.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The Data Protection Acts.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely helpful in all matters concerning the welfare of the nation. He gives one example of a precedent, but I was going to offer to write to give further precedents to help the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).
I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Committee will have heard what the Minister said. He has been helpful in giving us an example of what the Government would use the power for. We have the power in both Houses to have a compulsory vote on important renewal matters. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

EXPENSES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may consider amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 9, line 51, at end insert—
'(8) The Lord Chancellor shall ensure that during any control period a magistrates' court is convened for the purpose of hearings under this section at each port and airport in England and Wales that is a designated port under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.'.

Miss Widdecombe: I want to speak to the amendment. The Home Secretary and the Minister will know that the Opposition attach great importance to this matter. We have made it clear throughout that, unless this can be resolved in one form or another, we will not be able to support the Bill at subsequent stages. Should the amendment fall, which I hope that it will not, we will seek to examine the issue again with a view to finding some means of dealing with it in another place.
The issue, which I raised on Second Reading, concerns the availability of magistrates at the ports and airports. We are very concerned that speed is of the essence in dealing with these cases. I have already pointed out that I am concerned about the civil liberties not of hooligans, but of the innocent.
People will need to travel and their arrangements will be time sensitive. It could be something as serious as travelling to see sick relatives, something as commonplace—but still important—as travelling on business, or simply a matter of missing a match if the process is unduly delayed. It could even be a matter of missing connections if a person does not get a particular flight.
There will always be cases in which a particular urgency to travel is pleaded. Even with the Government's welcome improvement of reducing the 24-hour period, the fact is that there will still be some urgent referrals to be made. Those would be best served if magistrates were present at the ports to sit and hear a case immediately, when that was feasible in terms of the evidence being presented and the case made by the person who had been detained. If the Government will not accept that, they must provide some optional arrangement that will serve to convince the Committee that it will always be possible for an urgent case to be heard immediately.
On the last day of the five-day process, when it is crucial for people to travel if they are to see the match, those detained must have immediate access to a judicial process. After all, they may be perfectly innocent and not travelling to the match to cause any trouble, but may have been caught up in the process—and not even the Home Secretary would claim that in 100 per cent. of cases will the person involved be proved to be worthy of detaining and prevented from travelling. It is crucial that the Government accept amendment No. 10 or put forward a substitute for it in order to secure our support for later stages of the Bill. I intend, therefore, to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Malin: I rise in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on amendment No. 10. It is important that rapid justice be provided at the ports and airports. I do not know how many designated ports are listed in the schedule to the Bill, but some of the airports and ports, such as Dover, already have courts in operation. There is no court at Heathrow, but there is one close by.
My right hon. Friend said that a magistrate should be present, and I would add that a metropolitan or provincial stipendiary magistrate would be a useful addition if cases needed to be heard expeditiously. That point is no reflection on the lay bench, but lay magistrates sit in threes and that makes the process longer. Anyone who has practised in the courts will know that a lay bench takes longer to reach a decision. It is no better or worse a decision than that reached by a stipendiary magistrate, but the bench needs to retire together to consider the matter. If speed is necessary, there is a strong argument for having available a pool of stipendiary magistrates—I have declared my interest in previous debates—because that would speed the judicial process at the ports in question. My right hon. Friend is correct to stress that point.

Mr. Gale: My support for amendment No. 10 is reflected in the fact that I tabled amendment No. 31, which has not been selected but which called for the establishment of stipendiary magistrates and for the resources to be provided for in clause 4 to fund those stipendiary magistrates.
At the end of the previous debate, in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the Home Secretary indicated that court space would somehow be made available. If many people were detained, I presume that they would have to be dispersed around the south-east of England. It is not clear how that would work and perhaps the Minister of State will enlighten us. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that if the process is to be made to work—I have made it clear that I have grave doubts on that score—it must be possible for people to appear before magistrates very quickly. Otherwise, people will be detained who have nothing to do with football hooliganism but who are travelling abroad perhaps, as my right hon. Friend said, for emergency purposes. Facilities must be made available during the banning periods for those people to be heard.
I wish to raise one other issue in relation to clause stand part, and it has to do with the amount of resources devoted to implementing the Bill. Clause 4 states:
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment.
I said earlier that the Bill would place a tremendous strain on the already hard-pressed resources of the Kent police, who have the duty to enforce law and order at the several ports in our gateway county. The Government have recently increased the Kent police budget by an amount equivalent to 30-odd officers, who are dedicated solely to policing the ports. If the Bill is enacted it will place an additional burden on Kent, and the Home Office must make available the resources and personnel necessary to implement it.
I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that he will accept amendment No. 10, and reassure me that the necessary resources will be made available to the Kent police.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sympathetic to the amendment. The Minister should answer the practical questions raised by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Does he envisage ad hoc courts at some or all of the ports? What is the minimum and maximum number of ports likely to be so covered?
Earlier, the Home Secretary said that the Lord Chancellor had assured him that the system would be able to deal with the demands imposed by the Bill, but what are the cost implications? How many magistrates does the Lord Chancellor consider he has available?
The hon. Member for North Thanet made a general inquiry about the clause, which authorises the money to be spent by Parliament. The newspapers tell us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may announce more resources for the police tomorrow. What is the Home Office assessment of the policing costs incurred by the additional powers? What minimum number of extra police hours does the Minister think will be required to implement the legislation? What will be the cost to the Exchequer?
What guarantee can Ministers give that any additional court sittings or police attendance at them will not harm the availability of courts elsewhere? Many magistrates courts have been closed, and others are under threat.


Many hon. Members of all parties have raised concerns about that, as have their constituents. We need to be sure that the Bill does not cause a reduction or termination of services in other parts of the country.

Mr. Leigh: I rise to support the amendment, which goes to the heart of the Bill. The Minister has said, in his reasonable way, that the penalty is proportionate—that a person denied the opportunity to go to a football match can watch it on television. The impression given is that that person would be turned away by means of a friendly grip on the arm, and that he would go and watch television quite happily. However, we are talking about arrest and detention, which are far more serious and unpleasant matters. No one has difficulty about hooligans—whoever they are—being detained, but we are worried about perfectly innocent people being detained—or even potential hooligans, who, after all, will not be accused of having committed any crimes. This is a serious matter. It is not simply a matter of telling people that they can watch the match on television.
11.15 pm
We are after all committed to the rule of law. We believe that people should be denied their liberty and their ability to enter or leave their country only on the say-so of a properly constituted court of law.
I can understand what the Government are saying in one sense. The Home Secretary was very dismissive towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on Second Reading, talking about setting up trestle tables and implying that the courts would be drumhead courts.
If we are talking about arresting people—and arrest is unpleasant and embarrassing—it surely is not beyond the ken of the Home Office to arrange for an immediate court hearing to take place. Many of us are worried, especially as no crime has to be proved, and the arrest does not need to take place in the area of the port, that we are talking about a return to the old sus laws. I served on the Committee considering them, and many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, quite rightly railed against the sus laws and the powers that they gave the police. We do not want a return to those days—we want the Minister's reassurance that that will not happen.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this procedure is just like the anti-social behaviour order—it is quite different. Anti-social behaviour orders simply require people to obey the law of the land. That is not an unreasonable request.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment is about resources. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of that subject.

Mr. Leigh: I appreciate that, Mr. Martin.
Ministers constantly claim that to set up these courts in time is not achievable, that resources are not available and it is all too difficult. I do not think that that is right—this is a very important principle.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend is asking too much, and I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not be as dismissive as the Home Secretary was last

Thursday. There has been movement—in one weekend, we have brought down the period from 24 hours to four or six, and I give credit to Ministers for that.
I hope that the Minister will approach my right hon. Friend's amendment in a positive and constructive way, and explain why it will not be possible to have immediate court hearings, with the resources available to set them up.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I approach the amendment of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in a constructive spirit; I think that she tabled it in a constructive way. We cannot accept it for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, but we have agreed that magistrates' hearings will be convened at weekends when necessary to ensure that individuals issued with a notice preventing them from leaving England and Wales will have the opportunity of a hearing as soon as possible, and certainly before the limit expires. I acknowledge the importance of that to the legislation.
I agree that it is vital that the hearings be held in close proximity to the port or airport concerned. I accept, in the spirit of the debate that was mentioned, the point of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins); I think that the use of stipendiaries is a positive suggestion, and I am prepared to assure him that we will look at it carefully.

Mr. Burns: The Minister said that he thinks that it is important that hearings be held in close proximity to port and airports. Would he include Eurostar and its railway station?.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I would.
I am prepared to give the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) the assurance that he seeks—that we are actively looking at the costs of the legislation for police forces, particularly in Kent. We are considering the situation of those forces, and what grant could be made. He will know that Kent police received a significant grant last year for handling immigration issues, and we are prepared to consider the issue in that context.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about ad hoc courts. I am prepared to look at that suggestion too, because it is very positive, and we want to meet the spirit of what is proposed. His point on costs is covered at paragraph 27 of the explanatory notes: we estimate that the additional cost to magistrates courts will be about £150, 000 a year.
I do not accept what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said about a return to the sus laws. I had intended to tell the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that while I do not believe that it will be necessary to set up courts in air or sea terminals, the Government are willing to reconsider that matter when the measure is reviewed in 12 months, to see whether we should have done something different.
I accept the legitimacy of the right hon. Lady's point, but cannot accept her amendment because her reference to ports and airports designated in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Bill is not appropriate. She may or may not have had a chance to read the list of ports involved. The airports include Aberdeen, Biggin Hill, Birmingham, Blackpool and many more. The ports include Ardrossan, Campbeltown, Fishguard, Fleetwood, Heysham and more.
There are two problems with the amendment. First, the designated ports include none of those in Kent and Essex that usually deal with the heaviest traffic in football


supporters. I am aware that that is a drafting point and I intend no criticism by saying that the right hon. Lady's definition would not help us with the ports most important to the Bill. Secondly, her amendment states that a court would have to be convened at each designated port in England and Wales. The list of such ports is substantial, but it may be that none bears a relationship to travel to and from football games. It would be ridiculous to provide for court sittings at all the locations during every control period. For example, if the control period were triggered by a London club playing in Europe, setting up a court at Ardrossan, Campbeltown or Fishguard would not be appropriate.
I make no criticism of the right hon. Lady's intention, but we cannot support the amendment because it would not work. I hope that she will accept what I have said about the spirit of what we intend and the assurances that I have given to her and her hon. Friends, including the assurance that we shall reconsider the matter in 12 months' time if necessary.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is being helpful, but I did not hear him respond to my questions about the minimum number of ports affected by the Bill and on the number of police or police hours that the Home Office expects to result from a control order.

Mr. Clarke: I did not answer that question because we have made no assessment of the number of ports through which people would travel. The number—perhaps eight to 10—is relatively small by comparison with the number contained in the schedule to the Terrorism Act. Similarly, we have made no estimate of the costs of policing, although we have done so on the court side. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will withdraw her amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I am prepared to admit that the amendment might have been better drafted. However, it is the only amendment before us that addresses an important issue. I intend, therefore, to press it to the vote, and the Government will have an opportunity to amend the Bill on Report or in the other place. The issue is of such importance that the Committee should make a statement on it.

The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Lady will appreciate that her amendment will come up for decision at a later stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, leave out "one year" and insert "six months".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 40, leave out "four years" and insert "eighteen months".
No. 22, in page 2, line 40, leave out "four" and insert "two".
No. 23, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(5) Before an order is made under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the working of this Act in the previous twelve months.
(6) The Secretary of State shall appoint an individual or individuals in order to produce a report under subsection (5).'.

Miss Widdecombe: I intend to press amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to a Division. The two amendments relate to the so-called sunset clauses, seeking to reduce the periods involved. The Government propose that the Bill should cease to exist after five years. If it were thought to have been successful, fresh primary legislation would be needed. They also state that the first review of the Bill and its first annual renewal will take place one year after its commencement.
We propose that the Bill should cease to have effect after two years without fresh legislation and should be reviewed, with a view to renewal, for the first time after six rather than 12 months. The reason for that is that the Bill has been exceptionally rushed.
As a matter of form rather than of substance, I pointed out to the Minister that if he did not like my proposal, he could amend it on Report. As the Committee will be aware, it is exceedingly unlikely that, as Report will immediately follow the Committee stage, the Minister will have enough time to draft a suitable amendment.
The rushed proceedings of the Bill make it imperative that we review the measure as soon as possible. At this stage, we should include provisions for renewal, for the Bill to cease to exist and for the introduction of fresh primary legislation. Even if the time limit is two years, that would enable us to get past the world cup qualifying period and the matches about which the Home Secretary and the Minister are so worried. We should have been able to test the measure repeatedly. If it works well, the Minister need have no fear about the ease with which it would be renewed under fresh primary legislation. However, if it is not working, the sooner we get rid of it, the better. It would be counterproductive to add a further three years before it ceases to have effect.
If the legislation had been taken at a more leisurely pace, I would have considered six months unreasonable for the first review date. I would have said that we should have at least a year, so as to give the Bill time to work and to see what happened. However, there has been an exceptional rush. The Government have already had to amend their proposals many times. There were many additions and amendments to the first draft of the Bill before it became the second draft. That too was changed before the final Bill was issued. We have proposed amendments this evening—some of which the Government have accepted. They have added their own amendments and have tabled some on Report. We assume that there will be further amendments in another place.
The whole process has been so rushed that we need to give ourselves an early point of renewal. That is why I propose six months. That period will take us past several matches. The measure will have been exercised in different circumstances in several parts of the country. We shall have been able to form a judgment as to how well it is working. If it is not working—if it turns out to be an expensive piece of inefficiency—the sooner we get rid of it, the better.
If the Minister has confidence in the measure, however, he will accept my proposal. If he believes that the measure will work, there will be no difficulty whatever. Given that we have co-operated in trying to get it through and have done what we can to amend it to make it better, we shall not stand in its way if it is actually working after six months. Indeed, the Minister might like the opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box and gloat in six months' time—that might be a crucial moment for him to gloat. If he has confidence in the Bill, he will accept the amendments. I intend to press amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to a Division.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Hon. Members will have heard me quote the remark of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson's great ally. He said that the three wisest words in the English language were "Wait a minute".
I commend my right hon. Friend for her moderation in asking for only six months and not for a lesser period. I have sat through most of the proceedings of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. As the minutes go by, the disadvantages of the process through which the measure is passing become ever clearer. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. In choosing a period of six months, my right hon. Friend makes it clear that she has considered both the football programme that lies between now and that deadline and the desirability of reconsidering the measure, given the manner in which we have been considering it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I are concerned about this clause and we have tabled an amendment that is similar, although not as immediate in its effect, to the one tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I believe that the process today has confirmed my original view that we should review the Bill sooner rather than later.
If, over the next week, and with the help of the Lords, the House gets the Bill right, we may not need to do much work. However, that is not the issue. The issue is when we give ourselves the lever to do something about it, so I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to three proposals. The first is that we bring forward the timetable for review. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested that it should be six months, and the Home Secretary made the good point that it would be unrealistic to have a review at about the time of a general election. It is sensible to plan for the review outside the probable general election month of May and, to be fair to the right hon. Lady, a review in six or in 18 months would achieve that aim.

Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many matches England will play away in the next six months?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than me, but I understand that there is at least one away match in that period. I understand that England will play a friendly against France and the first world cup

qualifying match is against Germany, but that is a home game at Wembley. At most there will be two away games; but the hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than I do. However, as we were reminded earlier, there will be club matches that may also trigger the powers in the Bill. There is a competition in Germany in August in which Manchester United are scheduled to play, and the Government may want to act on that.
Secondly, we need to establish what the backstop to the Bill will be. As a result of representations, the Government have offered a backstop of five years, but we, like the Conservative party, are trying to persuade the Government to bring that forward. Such a Bill should not be left for as long as that.
The third proposal appears in amendment No. 23. I hope that the Minister can be positive about the fact that, as with much other legislation—including legislation that has passed through the House this year—there will be provision to report to Parliament on how the Bill has worked before we debate its renewal or extension. The Government should consult the police, the port authorities, the airports and the magistrates so that an informed report is produced by an independent person, and it is clearly not fixed, spun or in other ways subject to political bias.
I hope that my proposals appeal to the Minister and that he will give a positive response to all the amendments in the group.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I shall respond to the amendments in reverse order. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will consider withdrawing amendment No. 23. We acknowledge the importance of reporting to the House and we intend to table on Report an amendment that deals with that point directly. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is one of the signatories to that amendment.
I am pretty militantly against amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Six months is too short a period to review any legislation seriously. Considering it after 12 months is perfectly reasonable, because we need to go through at least a full international football season to have an idea of how the Bill has worked in practice. I do not want to be personally critical, but to suggest that we can review the Act in six months is ridiculous and disrespectful to the House. It is perfectly reasonable to report to the House after 12 months, and I would resist the amendment on that basis alone.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 22 are similar in character and relate to the length of the Bill's operation. The total of five years is perfectly reasonable, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendments if they are pressed to a vote. However, I do not feel as strongly about those as I do about amendment No. 1. I acknowledge that there is a balance of judgment about how long we should operate the Bill. Some say it should be five years, some say two years and others say 18 months, and we are prepared to continue discussions on that point, so if the Conservatives want to table different amendments in another place, we will consider them constructively. However, amendment No. 1 should be resisted as ridiculous.
In summary, I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) not to press amendment No. 23, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 22.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 207.

Division No. 271]
[11.36 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Loughton, Tim


Amess, David
Luff, Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bercow, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
McLoughlin, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maples, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Brazier, Julian
May, Mrs Theresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Norman, Archie


Browning, Mrs Angela
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Ottaway, Richard


Burns, Simon
Paice, James


Butterfill, John
Paterson, Owen


Cash, William
Prior, David


Chope, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Robathan, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Robertson, Laurence


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Cran, James
Ruffley, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Evans, Nigel
Simpson Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fabricant, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Fallon, Michael



Fox Dr Liam
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
Spring, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hancock, Mike
Townend, John


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Willetts, David



Wilshire, David


Key, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Yeo, Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Leigh, Edward



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. John Randall and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Godsiff, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Goggins, Paul


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alexander, Douglas
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Allen, Graham
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Banks, Tony
Grogan, John


Barnes, Harry
Hain, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Battle, John
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Beard, Nigel
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Best, Harold
Healey, John


Betts, Clive
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Blackman, Liz
Hepburn, Stephen


Blizzard, Bob
Heppell, John


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Hesford, Stephen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hoey, Kate


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Home Robertson, John


Browne, Desmond
Hope, Phil


Buck, Ms Karen
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Burden, Richard
Howells, Dr Kim


Burgon, Colin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Humble, Mrs Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hurst, Alan


Cann, Jamie
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jenkins, Brian


Clelland, David
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Clwyd, Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coaker, Vernon
Kemp, Fraser


Cohen, Harry
Kidney, David


Colman, Tony
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Corbett, Robin
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Corston, Jean
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Lammy, David


Cox, Tom
Lepper, David


Cranston, Ross
Levitt, Tom


Crausby, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Love, Andrew


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian(Makerfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
McIsaac, Shona


Dalyell, Tam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Darvill, Keith
McNulty, Tony


Davidson, Ian
MacShane, Denis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McWalter, Tony


Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)
McWilliam, John



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Dawson, Hilton
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dismore, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Drew, David
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Miller, Andrew


Edwards, Huw
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Efford, Clive
Moran, Ms Margaret


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mountford, Kali


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mullin, Chris


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Flint, Caroline
Olner, Bill


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Follett, Barbara
Palmer, Dr Nick


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Pickthall, Colin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Pollard, Kerry


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Pope, Greg






Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quinn, Lawrie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Truswell, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Savidge, MaIcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Ward Ms Claire


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Snape, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed:No. 2, in page 2, line 40, leave out "four years" and insert "eighteen months"—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 152, Noes 208.

Division No. 272]
[11.50 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clappison, James


Allan, Richard
Collins, Tim


Amess, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Baker, Norman
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, Rt Hon David


Ballard, Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brake, Tom
Fox, Dr Liam


Brand, Dr Peter
Fraser, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Breed, Colin
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gidley, Sandra


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burnett, John
Gorrie, Donald


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Burstow, Paul
Grieve, Dominic


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chidgey, David
Hammond, Philip


Chope, Christopher
Hancock, Mike





Harris, Dr Evan
Robathan, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Hawkins, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hayes, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jenkin, Bernard
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith,Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael


Keetch, Paul
Spring, Richard


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Loughton, Tim
Townend, John


Luff, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tyrie, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Waterson, Nigel


McLoughlin, Patrick
Webb, Steve


Malins, Humfrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maples, John
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilkinson, John


Moore, Michael
Willetts, David


Norman, Archie
Willis, Phil


Oaten, Mark
Wilshire, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Öpik, Lembit
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paterson, Owen



Prior, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. John Randall and


Rendel, David
Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Burgon, Colin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Alexander, Douglas
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cann, Jamie



Chisholm, Malcolm


Banks, Tony
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beard, Nigel
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coaker, Vernon


Best, Harold
Cohen, Harry


Betts, Clive
Colman, Tony


Blackman, Liz
Connarty, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cousins,Jim



Cox, Tom


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cranston, Ross


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Crausby, David


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Buck, Ms Karen
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)






Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
McIsaac, Shona


Dalyell, Tam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Darvill, Keith
McNulty, Tony


Davidson, Ian
MacShane, Denis


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McWalter, Tony


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
McWilliam, John



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Dawson, Hilton
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dismore, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Drew, David
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Miller, Andrew


Edwards, Huw
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Effort, Clive
Moran, Ms Margaret


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mountford, Kali


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Olner, Bill


Flint, Caroline
O'Neill, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Palmer, Dr Nick


Follett, Barbara
Pickthall, Colin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Pollard, Kerry


Gibson, Dr Ian
Pope, Greg


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Pound, Stephen


Godsiff, Roger
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Goggins, Paul
Prosser, Gwyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Purchase, Ken


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Quinn, Lawrie


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Rapson, Syd


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Grogan, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Hain, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Roy, Frank


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Ruane, Chris


Healey, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Salter, Martin


Hepburn, Stephen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Heppell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


Hesford, Stephen
Sawford, Phil


Hinchliffe, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Hoey, Kate
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Hope, Phil
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Snape, Peter


Hurst, Alan
Soley, Clive


Hutton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Iddon, Dr Brian
Steinberg, Gerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Jamieson, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul


Jenkins, Brian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Stringer, Graham


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kemp, Fraser



Kidney, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Lammy, David
Todd, Mark


Lepper, David
Truswell, Paul


Levitt, Tom
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Love, Andrew
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)





Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vaz, Keith
Woolas, Phil


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wyatt, Derek


Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Jim Dowd and



Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after 12 midnight, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1989

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 6, line 2, leave out from "football" to end of line 5.

No. 32, in page 9, line 6, after "match", insert "outside England and Wales.

No. 42, in page 9, line 7, leave out from "tournament" to end of line 12 and insert—
'if a constable in uniform—

(a) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in section 14B(2) above is met in the case of a person present before him. and
(b) has reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in his case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches'.
No. 37, in page 9, line 15, at end insert—
'and shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing.'.
No. 43, in page 9, line 19, leave out "24" and insert—
'four hours or, with the authority of an officer of at least the rank of inspector, six'.

No. 46, in page 9, leave out lines 47 and 48.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments, pursuant to Order [this day].

As amended in the Committee, considered.

Clause 5

COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to amendment No. 2—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the tremendous rush—the Bill has gone straight on to Report after being in Committee—has the Home Secretary requested an interlude in which to.


make a statement to the House on the crime figures released four minutes ago, which show a substantial increase in robberies and crimes of violence?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady is pushing her luck.

Mr. Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tabled a series of amendments to schedule 1 for the Committee stage. It occurred to me at about 10 minutes to midnight that the chances of reaching those amendments was fairly slim. What is the procedure if I wish to table those amendments to be debated on Report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. I am sorry about that.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you can help the House with this matter. I went to the Vote Office a few moments ago, and the amendments tabled up to 10 o'clock for consideration on Report had been printed, but there was no list of selected amendments. Can you tell the House which amendments you have selected for discussion on Report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A revised list will be available within the next quarter of an hour. We can deal now with amendment No. 2, and I understand that there is another amendment that we can discuss. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a revised list will be available soon.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is impossible under the guillotine motion for the House to be suspended, which is to be regretted. Some of us have not seen the amendments that were tabled before midnight. Can you tell us whether you have selected any other amendments to be taken with amendment No. 2, which you have just called? Can you give us advance warning about the second group of amendments, so that we have a chance of knowing what is coming and preparing for it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what is coming. Amendment No. 2 has been selected on its own, and amendment No. 4 is coming. The list that I mentioned will be available within a quarter of an hour or even sooner.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised a point of order about the amendments that he had tabled and which we were about to reach in Committee. He could not possibly have tabled those amendments for consideration on Report because he did not know whether we would reach them in Committee. Surely such amendments can be tabled during these proceedings

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can seek to table his amendments, but there is no guarantee that they will be selected.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 40, at end insert—
'( ) Before making an order under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a report about the working of this Act before each House of Parliament.'.
The amendment is in response to amendment No. 23, which was debated earlier. The Government acknowledge that it is important for the House to have a report about the workings of the Act so that a proper assessment can be made of it. We also acknowledge that there has been substantial debate about the matter, and concerns of substance have been expressed. We think that there should be a review, and it should be informed by a proper report on these matters.
I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment, which I believe gives yet a further guarantee that the House will be able, throughout the operation of the Act—as I hope it will become—to make its judgments as we move from step to step.

Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition welcome the amendment and have no difficulty accommodating it. However, I wish to make it clear that affirmative motions, reports or anything else are no substitute for a proper review at a much earlier stage than the Bill now provides for. With that caveat, we are happy with the amendment,

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government's amendment is welcome. However, this is the speediest turnaround of amendments that I have ever known. We spoke to our amendment at 11.30 pm, and I now discover that the Government are tabling their rewritten version of the same amendment at 10 minutes past twelve. There is some merit in speed.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It is called spinning.

Mr. Hughes: It is spinning in another sense at this time of the morning.
I am assuming the best, but would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that the report provided for by the amendment—which was anticipated by our amendment in Committee—will be prepared and written by someone who is entirely independent of the Government and can do the job without any partisan view?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has said, and I acknowledge that the amendment does not go beyond what she herself has argued previously.
I am grateful also for what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, although I cannot give the absolute assurance that he is looking for on this point. There is merit in what he says about the need for someone independent to do the report, but we have not come to a view as to the best way of reporting to Parliament on the matter. I am prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but there is a perfectly good case for the Home Secretary to lay the report with the Home Secretary's conclusions. It may well be that the Home Secretary of the day decides that it is better to ask an independent person to carry out that report. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I cannot give him the absolute assurance he is looking for.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his honesty. The experience of the last three years, and the


welcome Government initiative and principle of having an annual report, have shown that an independent report has much more credibility than a report that is not independent.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that there is weight in that point. To use a word that we will become accustomed to in the forthcoming years, proportionality is called for here. In terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the terrorism proposals, the issues are significant for the state, and having somebody who is clearly seen to be independent is well established in what we do. The point is not so overwhelming in this case, which is why I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that he seeks. However, it is true that the more independent any report is seen to be, the more it is likely to command general consent and support. That is why I say that I am prepared to look at the proposal, which has merit.
With that, I commend the amendment to the House. Despite the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald's caveat, I hope that she and everybody else will acknowledge that this is an important step and will provide reassurance that the legislation will be kept under close scrutiny.

Mr. Leigh: There is an important point of principle here. This debate on an important procedure has been dismissed in four or five minutes, with some short speeches, and I understand that the amendments were tabled by the Government today. This is a most extraordinary way of dealing with serious legislation. I wonder how many Members know in any detail what the amendments are about. The Government talk about modernisation and how it is bad to make laws after 10 o'clock at night. What an extraordinary way of proceeding. Is it really necessary to gallop through this after midnight and not even wait a day?

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. The amendment is one of the most clearly phrased that the House has had to deal with. I acknowledge that there are more complicated issues on other amendments that require close study, but we should also acknowledge that the amendment is clear in its phraseology.

Mr. Heald: Will the Minister amplify a little more what he would expect the report to contain? Will it simply be a list of the number of orders and detentions or will it give a wider view of the effect, for example, on the crime figures, which are rising extremely fast, with violent crime in particular up by a huge amount in the past year?.

Mr. Clarke: I hesitate to embarrass the hon. Gentleman in front of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has been so eloquent, but the wording is crystal clear when it says
report about the working of this Act.
The question was fair, apart from the general political soundbite surrounding it.

Mr. Heald: Ignore it, then.

Mr. Clarke: That is a good idea.
The question is simple. It concerns how often the powers are used; how they have been used; what pressures they have put on the criminal justice and police systems; to what extent we believe that we have successfully apprehended individuals who would have been involved in violence abroad; how the legislation has taken effect; and to which football matches it has been applied. In short, it is a list of how the legislation has operated, how the various players have behaved and what problems and difficulties have arisen as a result of trying to implement it.
I hope that some of the concerns expressed by the Opposition will not be borne out by events. The report will allow us to assess the extent to which their concerns have been justified.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the report include the costs of implementing the legislation?.

Mr. Clarke: I would certainly assume so. In the financial section of the explanatory notes, we have made an estimate of the costs, and it would be entirely appropriate for Parliament to know what the costs have in fact been.
I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

OFFENCES

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—
'but, for the purposes of paragraph (a), any football match included in the qualifying or pre-qualifying stages of the tournament is to be left out of account.'.
The amendment is intended to clarify, in response to the Second Reading debate elsewhere, the way in which the Secretary of State might use his or her powers to apply the legislation. We felt that it was important that the qualifying or pre-qualifying stages of a tournament be left out of account. For example, in considering the world cup finals or the Euro 2000 finals, we would not take into account all the qualifying games over two years, or whatever is the relevant period.
The amendment is sensible and responds to concerns that have been raised by hon. Members. I hope that the House will support it.

Miss Widdecombe: The amendment reflects what we sought in amendment No. 3. The Minister did not acknowledge that.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend and I meant to acknowledge that, and I did indeed acknowledge it earlier in our proceedings.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that acknowledgement, but why was amendment No. 3 not accepted? I am prepared to believe that there is a good reason for that, but how is amendment No. 4 better than amendment No. 3? The purpose of amendment No. 3 was to clarify the definition of the phrase "external tournament", which the Bill uses to define overseas tournaments such as Euro 2000. The amendment stated that that definition
shall not include any …qualifying or pre-qualifying stages.
As far as I can see, amendment No. 4 has the same purpose. I do not oppose it, but I ask out of curiosity: did the Government refuse to accept amendment No. 3 on a matter of principle?.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a practical question that relates to earlier interventions by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and others. Will matches in the qualifying or pre-qualifying stages of the next world cup be excluded from the provisions of the Bill? I thought that the House was speeding the passage of the Bill in order to include games in the first stages of a competition. I understand that competitions such as Euro 2000 should be ring-fenced, but will England's first away game in the world cup qualification group be covered by the Bill?.

Mr. Banks: I can help the hon. Gentleman. England's first away game in the qualifying stage for the 2002 world cup is against Finland on 11 October. On 28 March next year, the England team will travel to Albania. Crucially, the team will travel to Germany on 1 September next year, before finishing the programme with home games against Albania on 5 September, and against Greece on 6 October.
I assume that those matches—and especially the away match against Germany—would be covered by the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: There is agreement among hon. Members of all parties that those games must be covered by the Bill. However, the relevant control period may be not the one that governs the tournament, but a different control period that specifically ring-fences individual fixtures. The House needs to know the score about that, and exactly what powers we are being asked to approve.
How will the Bill affect the away games that England will play between now and the end of the qualifying period? I hope that the Minister will clarify that. If he cannot reassure the House that everything is fine, we may need to table another amendment.

Mr. Clarke: First, may I say that I in no way intended to snub or offend the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) by not acknowledging the critical contribution of amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 4? However, after discussions with the parliamentary draftsmen, the Government decided that the clarification
for the purposes of paragraph (a)
in amendment No. 4 made matters much clearer and addressed the situation more effectively. We sought the most precise form of words for the amendment, and this is it. I am genuinely sorry if the right hon. Lady was offended earlier.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about regulated football matches. He will see that schedule 1 states:
`Regulated football match' means an association football match …which is a prescribed match or match of a prescribed description.
The control period relates to a regulated football match and can be itemised to deal with a particular game, whatever type it may happen to be, in whatever kind of way. It could be one of the games in the qualifying period, for example.
Subsection (6) of proposed new section 14 relates to a tournament. We believed that it was important to restrict the period to the finals of the tournament, so that we did not have a much more general power. The changes have restricted the Home Secretary's freedom to do this in a way that is important and rational but does not remove the danger referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—that particular games might be left out. The Home Secretary will make a judgment about whether a particular game, in any circumstances, poses risks of the type that we acknowledge, based on the information that he has. He will then decide whether to establish a control period and consider the various relevant issues.
Where we wish to deal with the finals of a tournament, as we have seen in Belgium and Holland, and saw in France last year, rather than citing a whole series of different games, we think it right to make it explicit that the provision deals only with the final stage of that tournament rather than with all the pre-qualifying stages as well.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is clear; he is giving us the interpretation that careful reading—I was reading as he spoke—makes clear allowance for the two different types of prescription.
In practice, how will the fact that this law is applied—that the Home Secretary has made a decision to apply the law to a particular match or set of matches—be widely enough known in advance for everybody in the country to be aware that it applies to that particular fixture, and to club games as well as national games?.

Mr. Clarke: That is one of the practical things that we will have to address in detail—how to communicate exactly when and where the Home Secretary will make his decisions. What the hon. Gentleman says is right—it is important that everybody should be quite clear what the situation is before the event. We will ensure that that is the case. It is straightforward to do that, as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next amendment, I should like to tell the House that an up-to-date list of the amendments that we are discussing is now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first thank the staff of the House who have produced this in virtually no time at all? I also thank the civil servants, who have been given slightly more work than they had bargained for.
My point of order is this: I see that in Madam Speaker's provisional selection of amendments on Report, the next group includes amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. The next amendment selected—amendment No. 12—is in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and is about the rehabilitation of offenders and a backstop point. Amendment No. 8, in my name, is also about spent convictions. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider whether it would not be more sensible to take the two amendments on spent convictions together? I have not had a chance to consult the right hon. Gentleman about this, for which I apologise, but it seems to me that they are about one subject, whereas amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are about another.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is not normal to query Madam Speaker's selection of amendments, but I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that in British industry it is fashionable to talk of just-in-time delivery, but is it usual for the selection of amendments to be delivered to us literally two minutes before we are told that you have selected them for debate?.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not I who have been selecting the amendments but Madam Speaker. The Clerks are doing their very best to keep ahead of the procedures before the House.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1989

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 27, leave out—
'caused and contributed to any violence or disorder'
and insert—
`been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevent offence

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 7, in page 5, line 28, after 'or' insert—
`caused or contributed to any violence or disorder'.
No. 8, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
'(2A) A conviction under subsection (2) above does not include a spent conviction.
No. 9, in page 6, line 2, leave out from 'football' to end of line 5 and insert—
'(3A) In this Part, "violence" and "disorder" are limited to conduct which constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or conduct which, if committed outside the United Kingdom, would constitute a crime under the laws of the United Kingdom if committed in any part of the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Hughes: I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9. When I have finished my relatively brief remarks on those, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you would be kind enough to say whether you wish me to take amendment No. 8 together with them or separately.
In the bizarre, Alice in Wonderland world of this debate, we have moved from a Committee stage in which we debated one important issue—summary detention—but could not debate how to deal with banning orders into a Report stage in which we may debate banning orders but will have no opportunity to reflect on the debate on summary detention.
As the Report stage began, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said to me that crucial issues affecting the police relate to both issues, and there has been absolutely no chance for anyone to talk to any representative of the police between the first debate and the second—

Mr. Banks: I have.

Mr. Hughes: No representative, that is, except those available to us locally, who deal with parliamentary hooligans.
Amendment No. 6 is extremely important. My colleagues communicated our agreed position to the Home Secretary and the Government before Second Reading. We want to replace the general and dangerously wide provision in schedule 1 with a more specific provision.
At present, there are two conditions for a banning order that is triggered other than by a court decision on punishment. The order can happen on conviction or by complaint. The post-conviction order is non-controversial, if I have judged the mood of the House correctly. The order triggered by complaint is more controversial. It was anticipated by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and others, but we had not seen the exact wording involved.
A banning order may be made on the complaint of a police officer who has detained someone summarily and who, after four or six hours, must serve a notice saying that he or she intends to seek a banning order. That notice, in writing, indicates an intention to seek an order within a further 18 or 20 hours, the total period being 24 hours. My colleagues and I strongly hold the view that to say that it is sufficient for a police officer or a court to think that someone's past history qualifies that person for a banning order on the basis that the person may have caused or contributed to any violence or disorder, but without having been convicted, goes dangerously wide. We reject that as a trigger for a banning order.
Instead, we offer the House a straightforward statement that a banning order can be considered if someone has previously been convicted of an offence involving violence or any relevant offence. That takes the law further than at present, when banning orders happen only if there has been a football-related offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I are of the clear view that it is part of the job of politicians to deal with violence in our society, and it is reasonable that someone convicted of violence unrelated to football might be regarded as having a greater propensity to violence in a football-related context than someone with no convictions for violence.
Unlike the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—who is not in his place—we do not think that domestic violence should be excluded. It is not reasonable to say that violence in the home does not show a propensity to violence elsewhere. Indeed, we think that it is clear evidence of violence. A conviction for domestic violence must be part of the material background.
The third issue relates to amendments that have been selected for debate later and on which we have similar views to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). It would be wrong for the measure to recriminalise a person whose other convictions were spent. Under rehabilitation of offenders legislation, if a date has been specified after which a person can put his crime behind him, it would be wrong to resurrect that crime simply for a banning order

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman said that people's previous convictions for violence should be taken into account and they should be arrested on that basis. Unless I have misunderstood him, that is surely a departure from the normal principle that previous offences should be taken into account only when sentence is imposed. They cannot be considered in any initial action by the police against an individual.

Mr. Hughes: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. I am dealing with proposals for banning orders, which, as he is aware, are in effect an injunction. If that injunction is breached, a criminal action will be triggered. We have tried to be reasonable and to co-operate with the Government. As Parliament has accepted banning orders in the past—on a "Let's see if they work basis"—and as several councils have used that procedure, it is reasonable to use it in the measure, in certain limited circumstances.
There are two strands that have to come together before a banning order can be imposed. The first is a consideration of the person's history and the second is that we must believe that the person is about to do something—I shall come to that point in a moment.
Our view is that we should not base the first strand on the fact that the person has a general association with violence or disorder in the past. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that the fact that people had been on a demonstration where there was violence—even though they were not personally involved—might mean that they were swept up under the measure. We should not be able to get over the first hurdle unless it can be verified that the person has committed a criminal offence. The offence must be football related—including offences involving alcohol—or violence related.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for that explanation. However, I am not entirely happy. Surely any police action or arrest has to be based on the fact that an offence has been committed. The court should take account of past offences only after guilt has been proved and sentence is being considered. The danger with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that it would seem to give the police the power to interpret previous but wholly unrelated offences according to the action that they proposed to take.

Mr. Hughes: That is why the Liberal Democrats—and some Labour and Conservative colleagues—have resisted

a provision that would permit a banning order when there was neither a previous nor a current offence. Amendments tabled in Committee and on Report would meet the hon. Gentleman's requirement. They provide that people should not be detained unless they are committing an offence.
That point returns us to an earlier debate. Most relevant offences are those for which people can currently be arrested—the use of racial abuse, or violent or drunk and disorderly behaviour. The power of arrest already exists for such offences. No one has satisfactorily answered the question: what are the offences for which a person would currently not be arrested that would cause the police to act in the context of football? I do not think that there are any. Dropping litter is technically an offence, but it cannot be considered relevant in these circumstances. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the test must be that a person has committed an offence in front of a police officer.

Ms Ward: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he might have been planning to come to this point later. However, will he explain how the amendment would assist when someone is arrested abroad and there is evidence—it may be documentary or video evidence—to suggest that he was involved in an offence? That person might not be charged but would be deported, so how would the amendment assist in such a case?.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady asks a perfectly proper question. I suggest that she looks at the other amendments in the group. 1 do not want to deceive the House because amendment No. 7 is controversial. It would allow for a slightly wider past history to be taken into account for offences that take place abroad. We had an interesting and important debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and amendment No. 7 keeps the Bill's current wording for offences committed outside the United Kingdom.
There must be a conviction for offences committed in the UK, but the question is how we deal with offences, such as those that we saw on television being committed in Charleroi, for which no one is convicted. Clearly any sensible person would regard hitting someone over the head with a chair in a town square or throwing something through a window as an offence.
I do not pretend that amendment No. 9 is perfect, but a similar amendment was tabled in Committee by the Conservative party and ourselves. It attempts to deal with the second half of the question that the hon. Lady reasonably asked. We wanted to find a way that ensured that something that happened abroad could be prayed in aid as long as it passed the test that it was a criminal offence. The amendment states that
violence" and "disorder" are limited to conduct which constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or conduct which …would constitute a crime under the laws of the United Kingdom
if it had been committed here.
I am slightly nervous about that proposal, but it is only a probing amendment. 1 am nervous about it because of a point raised by Conservative Back Benchers last week. We do not know what the tests of a foreign court might be. Let us take an extreme example. In China, one might be convicted by processes that we would regard as


anathema to us and as entirely unacceptable. We would not want to sign up as a Parliament to the automatic importation of a conviction that took place abroad. We have tabled that probing amendment to try to discover the Government's view because we have not yet had a chance to find out their thinking.

Ms Ward: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I read from the amendment that he accepts the principle that someone in this country can be stopped under the provisions in the Bill without having been convicted of an offence. We are referring to offences that were committed abroad and would have constituted a crime in the UK if they had been committed in the UK. In this very amendment, he accepts the principle that someone can be caught by the provisions in the Bill without actually having a conviction.

Mr. Hughes: As it happens, we do not. We intend to press amendment No. 6 to a vote later and it insists that the precondition should be a conviction in the courts of this country. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9—the latter was originally tabled by the Conservatives in Committee—are probing amendments. We are not persuaded—certainly my colleagues in the other place are not persuaded—that what might or might not have been an offence abroad is sufficient reason to trigger the powers in the Bill. Our view is that the precondition—part one of a two-stage process—is that there must have been a relevant conviction in the United Kingdom. That would be achieved by amendment No. 6. The second part of the process is that a offence needs to be committed if someone is to be marched off to the magistrates court for a banning order.

Mr. Browne: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely, but it seems to me that amendment No. 6 would not achieve that objective because it leaves the word "elsewhere" in proposed new section 14B(2). If amendment No. 6 were made, the Bill would read:
That condition is that the respondent has at any time …been convicted of an offence involving violence or other relevant offence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: To be fair, the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not pretend that the amendment is perfect; we have been acting under the same time constraints as he has. We want to ensure that there can be action by the police and in the courts in the United Kingdom—or England and Wales—only if there has been a conviction. The hon. Gentleman may be right to imply that we should have sought to delete the word "elsewhere", and if amendment No. 6 is not made, we should seek to delete the word in amendment No. 7

Mr. Corbyn: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could help me because I have become completely puzzled by his arguments. I cannot understand why he has tabled amendment No. 9 at all because he appears to be speaking strongly against that amendment, which in effect would

allow a prosecution to take place in Britain for an alleged offence in another jurisdiction, where the quality of evidence and prosecution is unknown and it would be hard to collect any serious evidence other than photographs in newspapers. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he may be better off withdrawing that amendment.

Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly reasonable objective, and we have been trying to tease out all the issues so that we can debate them. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 9 is a probing amendment and we will not pursue it.
In a debate triggered by the Government, it was said that video footage and evidence of activities abroad could be prayed in aid and would be sufficient, but we do not accept that—it is a dangerous view. I gave an extreme example, and we may not play football against China very often, but there are countries closer to home where we would be suspicious about evidence. In Euro 2000, some of the activities and administrative procedures carried out by the Belgians gave cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to such a case. Some of us heard the contribution on the "Today" programme on Monday morning from the father of the one person who has been charged by the Belgian authorities, and he said that his son had an alibi and was not even on the scene. I do not want to prejudge that case, but there are good reasons for arguing that such activity should not be imported into domestic law.
I reassure the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that our objective in the debate is to make sure that the first leg of the process is achieved by a previous, relevant conviction in the UK. We accept the Government's argument that relevant convictions should not only be alcohol related, but we believe that those convictions should be limited to violence, football and alcohol and should not include spent convictions. The Bill certainly should not import activity from abroad that has not resulted in a conviction in the United Kingdom. I hope that that is clear, and we shall ask the Committee to divide only on amendment No. 6.

Mr. Leigh: I like amendment No. 6 because it has a certain neatness. It deletes the provision that has always worried me about the Bill, which is that one can be subject to the measures if one has
caused or contributed to any violence or disorder.
It is terribly hard to define exactly what that means in terms of bad language, gestures, demeanour or actual violence.
The strongest part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was his point that amendment No. 6 will make it clear that if one is to be the subject of an order, one must have been properly convicted in a court of law. All of us have confidence in our courts, so we believe that that provides a clear basis. Therefore, I am perfectly happy with amendment No. 6.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey does not mind my saying that the weakest part of his speech was that relating to amendment No. 9.


I do not blame him for that because he is working under time constraints that are unfair to him and others who have sought to table amendments. His provision would apply—he may certainly interrupt me if I have this wrong—a very different test abroad from that applied here.
I accept the part of amendment No. 9 that states:
violence" and "disorder" are limited to conduct that constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.
That is sensible. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are jurisdictions not in Europe but elsewhere in the world of which we are very suspicious and in which civil liberties are infringed. Why is he not also insisting that the conduct is of such a nature that it would not only constitute a crime here but result in a conviction abroad? Would not that be a double test, a belt and braces approach?
If the hon. Gentleman had tabled amendment No. 9 in such terms, he would be insisting that the person would have had to be subject to a conviction either here or abroad for such an order to be made. I do not know why he has not made that clear.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To put it bluntly—I am not trying to defend an attempt to cover all bases without an opportunity for consideration—amendments Nos. 7 to 9 were fall—back positions to test the water if we did not succeed with amendment No. 6. I repeat that the only amendment in the group to which we want to be signed up and will go through the Lobby to support is amendment No. 6.

Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. Amendment No. 6 is a very important amendment. It is rather a pity that we are discussing it at eight minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning, but that is the procedure that we have been given. That is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. I commend him for moving the amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: I have some sympathy with some of the amendments, but, oddly, I am not totally convinced of the wisdom of amendment No. 6. Effectively, amendment No. 6 would ensure that unless somebody has been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevant offence, that person will not be caught by the provision. We are specifically asked to
leave out "caused or contributed to any violence or disorder".
I know that the provision is controversial, but it is possible that somebody who could have contributed to violence or disorder could, for example, have organised violence or disorder but not been convicted of it. If intelligence and the use of material known to the police and others is to mean anything at all, clearly the only test applied to it cannot be that somebody has been brought before a court and convicted. So, in fact, amendment No. 6 goes against the spirit of much that we are trying to achieve.
However, I have very substantial sympathy with amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 9 is more or less a re—presentation of amendment No. 4 that we tabled in Committee, which was not reached. We tabled that amendment because there was then in the Bill a very clear statement that behaviour on which police would make a judgment as to whether it deserved detention and an

application for a ban need not be confined to behaviour that constituted an offence. That rang tremendous alarm bells on the Conservative Benches—we were talking about behaviour that might not be criminal.
I am quite happy to say that the behaviour might not have resulted in a criminal conviction because, as the Home Secretary pointed out, such offences were committed abroad but no prosecution took place, or because, under the law of that jurisdiction, the behaviour was not as easily definable as an offence as it would have been in the UK. The Home Secretary made that clear and I understood that difficulty. However, that is why we made a provision that behaviour would be judged according to UK law, not the law that might prevail in whatever jurisdiction in which the behaviour took place.
Perhaps I became confused during the rash of Government amendments taken at the end of Committee, but I got the impression that a Government amendment was made that took care of the problem, simply by eliminating that chunk of the clause—restricting the definition to violence and disorder and eliminating the offending provision whereby the behaviour had to constitute a crime. There appears to be a flurry of activity on the Treasury Bench—perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that that amendment was made. If so, I am happy not to support amendment No. 9, because the matter with which it deals has already been addressed; if not, we shall support amendment No. 9 if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I was checking the number of the amendment; it was, in fact, amendment No. 29, made in the final flurry of amendments in Committee.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation—I thought that that was what happened. In that case, I see no point in the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pressing amendment No. 9.
That brings me to amendment No. 8. Before committing Conservative Members, I should be interested to hear what justification there might be for relying on a spent conviction. If it is to be relied on, it will have to be made public and be the subject of discussion, with all that that implies for the rehabilitation of offenders. It would be an extremely serious proposition to say that spent convictions could be used for the purposes of the legislation. I remain to be convinced, but, for now, I believe that amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 12—which, for some reason, appears separately and stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—are wise amendments, which we might support depending on the Minister's reply.

Mr. Charles Clarke: We have had a helpful debate, the nub of which has been amendment No. 6 moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which I shall address later.
First, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is right to say that amendment No. 29 was passed in Committee. We believe that it


satisfactorily addresses the issue she raised, and I am sorry for the delay in providing the exact number of that amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like everyone else, I am trying to keep up. Amendment No. 29 was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and it only partially deals with the problem. It merely removes the second part of the definition of "violence" and "disorder" on page 6. I acknowledge that, at some point during the final group of amendments made in Committee, we might have passed a new definition, but that certainly was not achieved through amendment No. 29, which was certainly not a Government amendment.

Mr. Clarke: I know that amendment No. 29 was not a Government amendment. I believe that, in his opening remarks this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the0 Home Secretary stated his intention to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Government accepted that amendment, rather than table our own, because we felt that it was correctly phrased and dealt with the issue—although it might not have done so to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—and we were keen to accommodate the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman both on Second Reading and in his amendment No. 29.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that, and I did not intend to misrepresent the Home Secretary. I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot, but can he tell us where we have amended the Bill to put back in another definition of previous convictions, the first definition of which was removed by amendment No. 29?

1 am

Mr. Clarke: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that in a moment, if 1 can, but first I shall respond to the various points that were raised.
On amendment No. 8, to which the right hon. Lady spoke, I accept the intention behind it, but the amendment is not necessary by virtue of section 4(1 )(a) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, under which no evidence relating to spent convictions will be admissible in proceedings before a judicial authority.
When we debate amendment No. 12 in a moment, I intend to tell the House that we accept the spirit of that amendment, and also of amendment No. 8, but we will table amendments in the other place to put them in precisely the wording that we consider correct.
The motive behind amendment No. 7, as we understand it, is to provide further clarification of the conditions set out in new section 14B(2), but I am advised that the purpose and meaning of the conditions are already explicit, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
Amendment No. 6, as the hon. Gentleman said, is the nub of this group of amendments. It is fair to say also that

it was at the core of the debate on Second Reading. As I said when replying to that debate, the issue is key and clear. By proposing amendment No. 6, the hon. Gentleman is effectively seeking to ensure that the only evidence relevant to a banning order by complaint would be a previous conviction.
We believe that although there are perfectly reasonable arguments for that, which I understand, that would undermine the basis of the banning order by complaint. It is necessary for the courts to be able to impose banning orders on people who, for example, have been filmed causing trouble overseas, yet were not prosecuted in that country. Unless we are able to make the change, we would effectively preclude the police and the courts from tackling much of the football hooliganism of the type that we witnessed in Brussels and Charleroi. The intelligence issues highlighted by the right hon. Lady are correct and raise the same sort of questions as do film.

Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that this is an enormous departure from the normal legal process, and that we are in effect encouraging prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence imported from another jurisdiction? Would it not be better to seek international agreement so that, instead of countries merely deporting everyone who causes trouble—as happened in the case of Belgium as we understand it—they should be encouraged to undertake prosecution within their own jurisdiction? After all, that is where the offence has been committed. Does my hon. Friend further agree that there is a risk involved in the use of video evidence, which can be confused, inaccurate and dangerous, and can result in innocent people being convicted of serious criminal offences?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, I agree that it would be far better to get international agreements. That is the best way to proceed on all the international jurisdictional issues. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said on Second Reading that the best way to deal with these matters is to ensure that the forces of law and order in the jurisdiction of the country concerned deals with the situation. I understand the point, and it is a legitimate one.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will understand from his own experience, there can be a long wait for international agreements to be secured. What do we do in the meantime? Do we say that no action can be taken until we have those international agreements, or do we say that, even in the absence of such agreements, some action is necessary? I acknowledge that that is a matter of judgment.
That brings me to the second point that my hon. Friend raises, which has emerged as the key debate in relation to the Bill today and on Second Reading. When we consider the proportionality of the relevant issues, we must weigh up the view that there should be no violation of individuals' civil liberties in the circumstances that we are discussing—a perfectly fair point of view—and the need,


which the Government perceive, to inhibit the hooliganism. The penalty is not ultimately very great because only limited sanctions are available. One has to make a judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has been clear about his judgment, which I respect; I also respect that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, it is not our judgment.

Mr. Tyler: Does not the Minister recognise that the fact that this country could put the Bill on the statute book in its current form will delay and dilute the likelihood of international agreement? Other countries will reasonably ask, "Why should we bother? If we deport people back to the United Kingdom, it can deal with the problem under its legislation."

Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. The Government have worked hard to develop a stronger international jurisdiction, especially in the European Union. My right hon. Friend stressed that at the EU Tampere summit, and will do so in all the debates that he will attend later this week. He is keen to achieve mutual recognition of jurisdictions, and we have worked hard to that end. I therefore do not believe that the Bill will inhibit progress. For that reason, we will oppose amendment No. 6.

Mr. Corbyn: In the event of football supporters from another country arriving here to watch a match and causing all sorts of trouble, is it normal practice to prosecute or simply to deport without prosecution? In view of the obvious urgency with which the Government are pursuing the issue, will my hon. Friend at least open discussions with major neighbouring European countries and ask them whether they are prepared to prosecute in the event of drunken and disorderly behaviour such as that in Brussels, and thus abandon the incredibly complicated and possibly unsuccessful attempt to pass the Bill?

Mr. Clarke: I am prepared to assure my hon. Friend that we will discuss the matter with our allies in the EU. However, it is generally acknowledged that events at Euro 2000 and the fact that English so-called supporters were predominantly, although not uniquely, involved, to our national disgrace, puts us in a different position from some other countries in trying to deal with the issues that we are discussing. On prosecution or deportation, I am not familiar with the relevant legislation in detail, but I believe that prosecution rather than deportation is the normal course.
We had memorandums of understanding with Belgium and Holland in which they agreed to prosecute those committing offences. We also made Orders in Council that set out corresponding offences to enable banning orders to be made here. In the event, those involved were not prosecuted.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made another point about the position on section 29 of the Football Spectators Act 1989.

Mr. Chope: Does the Minister accept that unless amendment No. 6 is passed, someone who is prosecuted and acquitted will be in double jeopardy? On the basis

which the Minister outlined, of someone who has a spent conviction being let out, it is surely more important to accept amendment No. 6 and ensure that people who are prosecuted and acquitted are not subject to double jeopardy.

Mr. Clarke: I shall answer that point directly later. However, I want to deal with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Proposed new section 14C defines violence clearly in the context of the Bill.
I intended to conclude by saying that while I do not accept the position that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey presented, I respect it, as I respect that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. I also respect the comments made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald on amendment No. 6. She is right to take that stance, although, to be blunt, that has been difficult for her as there are clearly different views in her party, as the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) have shown. Conservative Front Benchers are right to have made such a judgment and I pay respect to her for that.
I know that there have been differences and disagreements in the Conservative party, and I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch. We have to decide whether a previous conviction alone is the only test and the only evidence relevant to making a banning order by complaint or whether we accept that there is a wider test. He says that a conviction should be the only test. I understand that point of view—I made a similar response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—but I do not accept it.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He has conceded the point about spent convictions, so how can he put a spent conviction in a superior position to an acquittal?

Mr. Clarke: We have to make a simple choice: should we allow other forms of evidence to be taken account of? We say yes, clearly and categorically. That is our judgment.

Mr. Browne: I am concerned that confusion between civil proceedings—proceedings by complaint—and criminal proceedings and convictions is creeping into the debate. My experience of the law north and south of the border and throughout the United Kingdom is that there is a healthy and growing jurisdiction under which people take proceedings to the civil courts even though a complaint to the criminal courts may have been unsuccessful. The Stephen Lawrence case is a prime example. Were we to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, we could be in a ridiculous situation: citizens of the United Kingdom could be subject to civil proceedings and prevented by injunction or interdict from attending football matches in this country, but the Government would be unable to use civil proceedings to prevent the same people from travelling abroad to create mayhem. That would be nonsensical.

Mr. Clarke: That extremely helpful intervention has helped to clarify the discussion and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has set out the situation clearly.
I have responded to all the points and I hope that amendments Nos. 7 to 9 will not be pressed. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey presses amendment No. 6 to a vote, I urge my hon. Friends to reject it and support the Government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The choice is clear, and the Minister has been fair about that. The present law covers people with a previous football-related conviction, but the Government argue that we will be able to catch more people if the range of activity is extended to include people who have no convictions. However, that would lead to the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred, to his credit. The most extreme and bizarre would be that a conviction for a violent or football-related offence secured under the "beyond reasonable doubt" rule would be blotted out if it fell outside the period for the rehabilitation of offenders, which varies according to the offence, whereas a person who had appeared before the court, but whose case was not proven, could find himself in double jeopardy.
May I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)? North and south of the border, the United Kingdom allows civil and criminal proceedings. Indeed, injunctions secured in civil proceedings have been available for a long time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should bear with me. On the balance of probabilities—often in domestic cases, in which I have acted myself—a person has to persuade a judge to make an order prohibiting another person from going within a certain distance of, or from interfering with, him. That triggers a criminal conviction only if that individual disobeys the injunction. That then represents an offence and the individual can be arrested. The same applies here. Do we want the fact that someone has a track record of bad behaviour to be sufficient to allow an injunction-type order and a criminal sanction?
1.15 am
We should proceed gradually, because there is a big danger that we will catch not just people who have caused trouble at home or abroad, but those against whom the evidence has never been tested to a satisfactory conclusion. We can argue about the right procedure, but Liberal Democrats do not think that we should move in one leap from people with convictions for football-related offences, past people with convictions for all violence-related offences, to people with no convictions at all. That is not a justified leap to take in legislation that has been through the House in two days, that has had no chance to be assessed externally, that many organisations are unhappy about, and that has not been proved necessary on the experience of Euro 2000 or anything else. It is a step too far. It is of course much more likely that people will be prevented from going abroad, but do we want to have the power to do that on the basis of thin, arguable and marginal evidence?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is my understanding that if there is no conviction on which the magistrates can base a banning order, they have to have evidence and proof of the circumstances. They cannot simply have something mentioned: it must be established. I believe that it must be established to the criminal standard of proof.

Mr. Hughes: The legislation is silent on that matter. On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question whether the criminal balance of proof will be required to establish the second head. The court, as well as knowing the history of previous activity, must be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches.
The combination of those two leaves unclear what the balance of proof must be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman properly argued that this was another matter for which we should have explicit, not implicit, law.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I think that it is the criminal standard of proof. The two ingredients in new section 14B(4)(a) provide that the application can be made to a magistrates court only if
it is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) above is met.
The condition of subsection (2) is that the respondent has been guilty of violence or disorder.

Mr. Hughes: I tend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view. I did not do as much in the courts as he did, and I was not as eminent as he was—[Interruption.] Yes, I was cheaper. My recollection of the civil courts is that one did not have to prove the circumstances but merely had to satisfy the judge on a balance of probabilities. It was a "more than 50 per cent." test. Therefore, that question remains unanswered.
The experience that justifies the Government's case has not been proved to our satisfaction. I ask the House to proceed cautiously. We should not legislate if we are in doubt about whether we should take away people's liberties, their passports, their right to go abroad, or their ability to be detained or to walk free.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) feels obliged to support the Government on this provision, because it provides a tougher power. The leader of her party often seems to set the agenda on law and order for the Government to follow. Some of us are arguing that we must defend the Liberty position and ensure that the case for prosecution and for further extension of the criminal law is made.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 196.

Division No. 273
[1.20 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brake, Tom


Allan, Richard
Brand, Dr Peter


Baker, Norman
Breed, Colin


Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Harry
Burnett, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chidgey, David






Corbyn, Jeremy
Oaten, Mark


Cotter, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sanders, Adrian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stunell, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hancock, Mike
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Harris, Dr Evan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Harvey, Nick
Truswell, Paul


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tyler, Paul



Webb, Steve


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Willis, Phil


Keetch, Paul



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonnell, John
Sir Robert Smith and


Moore, Michael
Mr. Donald Gorrie.


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Drew, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Alexander, Douglas
Edwards, Huw


Allen, Graham
Efford, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Banks, Tony
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Barron, Kevin
Flint, Caroline


Battle, John
Follett, Barbara


Beard, Nigel
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Best, Harold
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Goggins, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Grogan, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hain, Peter


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Buck, Ms Karen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Burden, Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burgon, Colin
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hayes, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Heald, Oliver


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Hepburn, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hope, Phil


Clwyd, Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Cohen, Harry
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kemp, Fraser


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen



Lammy, David


Dawson, Hilton
Lepper, David


Day, Stephen
Levitt, Tom


Dismore, Andrew
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dowd, Jim
Love, Andrew





Luff, Peter
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Stringer, Graham


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Todd, Mark


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Truswell, Paul


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Quinn, Lawrie
Ward, Ms Claire


Randall, John
Watts, David


Rapson, Syd
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Woolas, Phil


Roy, Frank
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Salter, Martin
Wyatt, Derek


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sawford, Phil
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. Tony McNulty.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 19, at end insert—
'(4A) A court shall not take into account any conviction which is spent pursuant to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or conduct which took place more than ten years prior to the relevant control period.'.
I shall be brief. Under proposed new section 14B(2), the court can make a banning order on the basis of a conviction, or on the basis of evidence brought before it. However, the Bill contains no time limit in relation to such a conviction or to evidence. The amendment would make it clear that the court could not take into account a conviction that had become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.1 am sure that the House will find that reasonable. It would also mean that the court could not take account of evidence that related to an event more than 10 years before the relevant control period.
It is wrong that the Bill should contain no limitation. The limitations in the amendment are reasonable, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Charles Clarke: The position on spent convictions is covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said. Section 4(1)(a) of that Act provides that no evidence relating to spent convictions is admissible in proceedings before a judicial authority, including a magistrates court. Section 7(1) makes an exception of criminal proceedings, but proceedings under proposed new section 14B will be civil, not criminal, proceedings.
It follows that the effect of the amendment would be the same as the effect of the law already. However, I accept that the amendment would add clarity and certainty. Although we believe that the amendment is not necessary, we accept the spirit in which it was moved.
I also agree that the point about conduct of more than 10 years before is legitimate, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will consider it further. We will table amendments in another place to give effect to the proposal, and we believe that we can do so in a way satisfactory to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I and my colleagues are grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire for tabling the amendment. We hope to be associated with the consideration of a proposal to ensure that an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 12 finds its way into the Bill.

Mr. Lilley: The amendment covers spent convictions, but will the Minister say whether it will be possible for the court to consider unspent convictions? Proposed new section 14C(4) states:
The magistrates' court may take into account the following matters … so far as they consider it appropriate to do so.
The first of those matters is
any decision of a court or tribunal outside the United Kingdom.
None of the four prescribed matters relates to decisions of courts in the UK, so it is not clear whether the court could consider a conviction, spent or unspent.
I tabled an amendment to proposed new section 14C(4)(a) to include courts inside the United Kingdom, but Madam Speaker was unable, in the time available, to include it for consideration. That is certainly no criticism of Madam Speaker or of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the fault of the Government that we have had no pause between Committee and Report, when these matters could have been given proper consideration. However, it is clear that there is a very odd feature in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will explain why that is.

Miss Widdecombe: As I indicated in the debate on amendment No. 8, we have enormous sympathy with the proposal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). However, in

view of the Government's promise to address the matter in another place, if my right hon. and learned Friend were to withdraw his amendment, we would be equally happy.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I appreciate what the right hon. Lady has said. I can give her and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the assurance they seek—on Front-Bench spokesmen will be involved in discussions about the nature of the amendment in the other place.
Proposed new section 14C(4), referred to by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), says:
The magistrates' court may take into account the following matters (among others)…
The purpose of the provision, as I understand it, is to make clear the power of the magistrates court to look at those wider areas. I believe that the magistrates court's right to look at unspent convictions is covered adequately in other parts of the Bill, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details at a later stage if he wishes.
With that, I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 48, at end insert—
'( ) If it appears to the court that there are such circumstances, it must in open court state what they are.'
To give the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) the credit that she is due—and which she seeks on every occasion—the amendment gives effect to amendment No. 5, tabled in Committee by the Opposition. As proposed by the right hon. Lady and agreed in Committee, the Government accept in principle that if the court does not impose a requirement of passport surrender when making a banning order, the court should state in open court the relevant exceptional circumstances. The amendment gives effect to that proposal, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Minister for those few kind words and for accepting the spirit of the amendment, which was important to us. One of the reasons why the Government have had to toughen up considerably on banning orders is that they have not been used by the courts as often as they might have been. We therefore strongly believe that it is only in exceptional circumstances that they should not be used, and that, where such exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist, we should have the full reasons.
Will the Minister please explain why our amendment No. 5 in Committee and his amendment No. 5 on Report differ so substantially as to make a significant difference? I am not sure that I see why, although the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's reaction is gratefully received.

Mr. Burns: I know that it is late and I hope that the House will forgive me, but I have a genuine concern. It is not about the intention of the amendment but about its


working and meaning. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain and the answer will be very simple: unfortunately, I am not a lawyer.
The intention of section 5(3)(5A) of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 was to make the courts impose international banning orders on those convicted, unless, in the courts' mind, there were exceptional circumstances which meant that such an order should not be imposed. The court would have to give a reason, in open court, as to why it had not used the powers in the 1999 Act.
We have seen, in the evidence since September last year, that the courts have been reluctant to do that, so the Government have rightly decided to toughen up the provision. However, I do not understand how amendment No. 5 to proposed new section l 4E(3) would do anything different from what the 1999 Act provides, except that "shall" is used in the 1999 Act, whereas "must" is used in the Bill. I cannot believe that that is of paramount significance. We can tell the court that it must do something, but that is diluted by the rest of the Bill. If the court believes that there are exceptional circumstances not to do that thing, it will, as a result of the amendment, have to give reasons why, exceptionally, it is not using the powers.
What is the difference between the 1999 Act and the Bill? And, if there is little difference and no statutory duty on the courts to impose orders except in exceptional circumstances, how will the Government actually be tightening matters to ensure that banning orders on conviction of hooligans become the norm rather than the exception, as has been the experience under the 1999 Act?

Mr. Charles Clarke: First, on the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), we are all in the hands of the parliamentary draftsmen, who said that our version was better because it was simpler, shorter and clearer than the otherwise excellent wording proposed by the right hon. Lady.
On the point made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), what has happened so far has not been good enough, and we need to strengthen the provisions. "Must" is a stronger word than "shall", and our amendment, in response to the Opposition's wishes, will strengthen the powers further. We shall monitor matters and report to the House. This debate and the tighter legislation that has resulted give reason to believe that we shall achieve more rigorous adherence to what the house wants than the has been the case under existing provision. As with the rest of the Bill, however, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we shall assess that at the appropriate time.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am acutely aware of criticisms about the time taken to address the Bill and consider its various aspects. Let me return to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier—we have had a substantial and full discussion of the points of principle. Moreover, we have

sought, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have acknowledged, to work in the most consensual way possible—for the practical reason that we wanted to get the Bill through both Houses as quickly as possible, and for the equally practical reason that the more consensus there is in the House, the easier it will be to put the Bill into effect.
Important judgments remain to be made. Ultimately, the important question is whether we are determined to do all in our power to stamp out the football hooliganism that has so disfigured our society. The Government are determined to do so, and to ensure that international and club games can take place in a more positive and constructive atmosphere than has existed until now. We are determined to carry the Bill through, and I hope that it receives the unanimous support of the House so that the other place may consider it in its entirety. I commend the Bill to the House.

Miss Widdecombe: After a fairly consensual approach, I hate to end our proceedings on a note of dissent: the procedures that have been inflicted on the House today—although not those debates that we have been allowed to hold—amounted to a farce.
We have tried to discuss the Bill responsibly. The Government obtained a Second Reading with no difficulty, in the same time that would have been taken if we had debated it on the Friday originally proposed by the Government. We have been in constant discussion with the Government about possible or agreed amendments. We have done all we could. All we wanted today was the opportunity to debate some major issues in Committee.
We wasted more than two hours discussing the ill-considered guillotine motion when we should have been discussing the Bill. As a result, half the amendments tabled in Committee were not debated. If we had been allowed to complete the Committee stage properly, it would not have been necessary to return to some matters on Report: we could have debated and voted on some important issues.
When the Bill was introduced, we made it clear that, if we were to support it at later stages, certain matters were extremely important to us—for example, the presence of magistrates in the ports. Today, we held an important discussion on magistrates warrants. We were not able to vote on that matter—not because there had been no debate, but because the guillotine fell at midnight and we had not yet reached that point in the order of consideration.
The same point pertained in another important discussion on magistrates in the ports. The debate was held, but we were not allowed to vote. We have not been able to amend the Bill to our satisfaction. What is even worse is that we did not even debate the amendment on the criminal standard of proof. That issue is central to the Bill. It came up tangentially in other discussions, but the amendment was not debated.
Against that background, we have made it clear throughout the Bill's proceedings that we will not obstruct its further consideration. We shall not obstruct sending it to another place. However, it goes there in a much less


satisfactory form than if there had been no guillotine today and if we had been allowed to co-operate as we have done all along.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the political divisions in the Conservative party are the main reason for today's guillotine? We saw those divisions on Second Reading, when Conservative Members voted against the right hon. Lady's lead. Moreover, certain Conservative Members have made a practice of disrupting the business of the House. It is the Opposition's failure to control their Back Benchers that has led to what occurred today—there are splits and divisions in the right hon. Lady's party, as she is aware.

Miss Widdecombe: That is utter tosh. The Minister is well aware that we made it clear through the usual channels that we did not expect any undue delay in tonight's proceedings and that we expected to conclude them at a reasonable hour—although certainly not by 10 pm, which would have been the effect of the original guillotine that the Government had the gall to table. We gave such assurances as we could in the circumstances, having talked to all the people who had difficulty with the Bill.
The Government had no grounds other than their own muddle and incompetence for tabling the guillotine motion. The hon. Gentleman should not say that it had anything to do with divisions in the Conservative party. There have been divisions over the Bill in the Labour party, too—a fact which the Minister persistently ignores. The Bill will receive quite a rough passage in the other place—and not only from the Opposition. Considerable disquiet will be expressed by Labour Members; they will not say that they want to curtail discussion of the measure because they fear dissension in one particular party. I am sorry that it has come to this, for the simple reason that, until the guillotine motion was tabled, we were proceeding in a spirit of co-operation. We could have had a sensible debate tonight and we could have reached and voted on the other issues. The Bill that is being sent to the other place would have been in better shape, and that would have been better for the Government had they wanted it to receive the quick passage through the other place which I suspect it is most unlikely to receive.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I note that three hours and 10 minutes remain to debate the Bill, but it may be for the convenience of the House to learn that I anticipate that we shall finish this debate in 10 minutes and not three hours.

Mr. Corbyn: Do not talk the rest of us out.

Mr. Hughes: I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I share the general view, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), about the procedure that has been used. It is nonsense that Parliament has been asked to take all the Bill's stages in two days and, in particular, that in the past 12 hours we have taken its Committee and Report

stages and are debating its Third Reading with no chance to consult people between those stages. We have not been able to consult key people such as the police, the courts, the football authorities and the rest. The House has been asked to consider amendments on Report to a Bill that was not even before us simply because it had not been printed as amended in Committee. People who had not been here would not have been able to follow debate on the Bill that we were amending, and those of us who were here all day have found it difficult to follow the implications of each and every amendment.
It was not necessary to take all these stages today. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said last Thursday, and as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) argued earlier, we could have held the Committee stage today and the remaining stages on Wednesday. The whole House could have participated and we would have completed the Bill in time for it to go to the other place. The Lords could have completed its consideration on separate days and that would have still left some days before the end of term. Not only was the guillotine motion bad practice, but it has probably resulted in bad legislation.
On the policy issues, we have always said that we wanted further legislation to deal with football hooliganism. We have always said that the problem was particularly an English one and that it was logical, because of the procedures that we use, to have a Bill that covered England and Wales. We have always said that we would support a Bill that would make international a domestic ban and that, in such cases, the courts could make it a requirement to surrender a passport.
However, we have also made two points very clear. We said that banning orders must have the precondition of a conviction. We moved an amendment to that effect on Report, but we were not able to carry the House with us even though Members from both the other main parties supported it. We also said that we were not willing at this stage—without testing for toughened legislation with further bans and further entitlements to remove passports—to intrude so much into the individual liberties of the citizen that we would introduce summary detention on the basis of a record that might not have involved a conviction or that might never involve a conviction. That would be a piece of legislation too far. We tested that proposition and, again, we had support from Members of both parties, but we were unable to carry that point in Committee.
It would be inconsistent of us to say that we were now happy with the Bill. Let me be honest with the Minister. If this were a single-Chamber Parliament, we would have the crude choice between voting against the Bill, knowing that we had no chance to improve it, and seeing no Bill on the statute book. This is not a single-Chamber Parliament and another Chamber will give the Bill significant consideration next week. We hope that it will pick up many of the unresolved issues that have been left from these debates.
It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Government have moved their position and not to accept the co—operation that they have offered and that there has been between the three parties. That has improved the Bill, but it is still not a good Bill and, in some respects, it is still a dangerous Bill. The dangerous, extended


provisions, which my colleagues and I do not think are good law or good drafting and which are not justified, mean that we feel obliged to vote against Third Reading.
If the Bill is passed tonight and goes to the Lords, we hope that they will amend it and teach the Government that it will be better to have the Bill without the fourth provision than to have a badly drafted Bill with the fourth provision included against considerable opposition in this House and elsewhere. The Government have about nine days to think again; we hope that the other House will persuade them to do so.

Mr. Banks: It might be regrettable that the House has had to consider football hooliganism again today, but that does not mean that we are passing bad legislation.
The arguments that we have heard today have been well rehearsed over a long period. The 1989 legislation and the Act introduced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) have contributed to the argument about how we deal with football hooliganism, and we have moved on stage by stage in a reaction against the behaviour of the minority of fans who still do so much to damage the game abroad.
My feeling is that this Bill will not be the last because, whatever the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) thinks, it would not be worth anything at all without the fourth provision. He shakes his head, but we will see who is right in the long term. We will probably have to revisit the subject in the House—so be it. We will have a chance to assess whether the Bill is effective. We must get it right, and the important point is that if we keep getting pushed by hooligans, we will keep pushing back.
We have had a short debate, but the arguments have been well heard and well rehearsed and we have answered them very well.

Mr. Burns: Like the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I suspect that this will not be the last legislation on football hooliganism that a Government have to pass. I do not believe that legislation alone will solve the problem, but it is an important part of the equation in minimising hooliganism.
If one studies the record and considers the seven pieces of legislation since 1985, one realises that there has been a significant drop in incidents of hooliganism at domestic matches. As the Home Secretary said earlier, the problem has now shifted overseas with a vengeance. Last year, I introduced the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, but was unable, as a private Member, to include the provision for a court to take away the passports of unconvicted football hooligans if it was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that if those people travelled abroad, they would cause problems. As a result of that debate, that provision has been included, and the Bill will now move from this House to another place and hopefully become law before we rise for the summer recess.
It would have been perverse of me not to support the Government's proposals because I have been arguing for over 15 months for most, but not all, of the Bill's provisions. Some of them have built on my Act; some are

measures that I desperately wanted in my Act, but could not, as a private Member, achieve; and some are totally new. On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about some of those new provisions. I am not opposed to them in principle because, like the hon. Gentleman, I think that if we removed the fourth provision, we would gut the Bill, and that would mean that we would return to the House to deal with further legislation far sooner. I had some reservations about certain aspects, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I am pleased that, as a result of the concerns that were expressed on both sides of the House on Second Reading on Thursday and—presumably—in discussions since then, the Government have proposed changes to build in greater safeguards. From a purely personal point of view, I am satisfied with those safeguards.
I genuinely hope that, when the Bill reaches the statute book, it provides the state with a significant weapon with which to deal with those people who have caused so much misery to so many other people and ruined the reputation of the game of football and enjoyment of it among innocent citizens of this country.
I conclude by saying what I said on Second Reading: of course the House has a proper duty to safeguard and protect the civil liberties of the minority, but there comes a time in the affairs of state when the civil liberties of the majority, which have been infringed for so long in this area, must be protected and strengthened so that they may also enjoy them free of fear, intimidation or violence.

2 am

Mr. Corbyn: After 10 hours of debate, it is a little odd to call this Bill a rushed piece of legislation. However, although what happened in Charleroi and Brussels was appalling, as is the violence associated with England playing international games, the House ought to ask whether pushing a Bill through in two days on a ludicrous timetable is a sensible way to deal with the issue. Quite why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suddenly tabled an amendment so that we could talk until 5 am on Third Reading but curtailed debate in Committee by speaking for so long on the timetable motion beggars belief. One wonders about the Conservatives' intentions.
I hope that the Bill is significantly amended in the Lords because it is a very bad piece of legislation. There ought to be a great deal more examination of its long-term and very serious implications.

Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although everyone shares the shock and horror at the outrageous scenes in Charleroi in Belgium, legislation passed in a hurry on a wave of popular outrage is inevitably shoddy? Sadly, that may prove to be so with this Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend because it is a serious issue to condemn—rightly, as everyone does—the violence associated with Euro 2000 and the abominable racism that surrounded much of the violence not just in Brussels and Charleroi but earlier in Copenhagen and at other events surrounding matches between Leeds and Galatasaray and Arsenal and Galatasaray. I was pleased


that the Home Secretary yesterday started to address the chauvinism, nationalism, racism and violence associated with so much of the trouble.
We must ask some serious questions. If other countries are capable of playing international football matches without their newspapers leading up to them as though it were the start of a war, perhaps we have some lessons to learn. Perhaps football commentators could say and do a little more, rather than merely reporting with glee that the England fans at the game were playing the music from "The Dam Busters", singing "Rule Britannia" and behaving as though Britain could never be defeated at anything—as if England suddenly became Britain at a football match. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has opened up that debate because it is high time that was done.
I still think that the Bill is dangerous and misguided. If anyone commits an offence at a football match—drunken behaviour, violent behaviour, racist violence or some other offence—there are laws to deal with such behaviour both in this country and in all the western European countries on which our debate has focused. It is only right that prosecutions should take place within the jurisdiction in which the offence is committed.
My objection to the Bill is that it gives a great deal of power to individual police officers, based on their own perception and on suspicions arising from evidence of what individuals may or may not have done abroad, to apprehend people, remove their passport and deny their right to travel. It might be said that no more is involved than those people missing a football match which they can watch on television—provided that they can afford to subscribe to Sky—but the reality is that it is a serious matter to give such powers to the police.
When I first entered Parliament, there was a campaign to get rid of the sus laws introduced in 1824, which gave the police the power to apprehend people on suspicion. The people whose behaviour in Brussels and elsewhere that we have discussed do not sound like especially nice people or people with whom one might have much sympathy, but I urge the House to think about the serious implications of giving such powers to the police outside any judicial process.
We must also ask the simple question, will the legislation work? It does not apply to the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or Scotland, so there are obviously enormous loopholes. If trouble surrounds the England-France game in September—after the Bill has been pushed through both Houses of Parliament—what will we do then? Will we come back and give the police even more sweeping powers of arrest? Will we prevent people from travelling at all? Will we ban everyone from watching the games? There is a danger that the Bill will not work.
I recognise that the House will pass the legislation—both major parties are agreed on it and a majority of Members have been whipped to pass it. However, our experience of rushed legislation is that it is ineffective and inaccurate. Legislation passed in haste means that, at some point, we shall have to return to the subject and repeal parts of the legislation.
Finally, the statements made by Liberty and the Law Society suggest that the Bill is outwith the European convention on human rights. A case will end up before the European Court and I suspect that the British Government's position will prove untenable. We should remember that the civil liberties we want for ourselves should apply to everyone else. If we give powers to the police without considering the implications, we shall have done an extremely bad job in the House today.

Mr. Lilley: On Second Reading, I expressed my fear that all five of the conditions that typically give rise to bad legislation prevailed in respect of the Bill and accounted for its poor quality. It has been carried through in undue haste; it was introduced after cries that "Something must be done, " even to influence events that take place outside our jurisdiction; it is the subject of Front-Bench collusion; it is driven by an orgy of sanctimonious vilification of an unpopular minority; and it will be carried through because the Government lack any firm commitment to the principles of liberty and individual freedom.
I am afraid that all those conditions still apply. The result is a Bill that, although somewhat improved, is not a great deal better than the one we started with, and certainly not a Bill that is good enough to command the support of the House. As for the process by which the measure has been considered, it is fair to say that it has been carried through with unnecessary haste. We have had time enough to see how bad the Bill is, but not time enough to make it better. Above all, we have not had time before Committee stage to seek advice and amendments from our constituents, interested parties and experts outside the House, and no time at all between Committee and Report. Indeed, nobody could table an amendment after Committee stage and before Report—we had to table them before the end of Committee stage. If they were tabled late, they were too late for consideration by the Speaker, so could not be included in the rather brief Report stage that we eventually had.
The Home Secretary gave a devastating indictment of his own case when he was at the Dispatch Box earlier and considered the question whether the Bill had been introduced with undue haste. First, he said that the ideas for such legislation had been around for months and people had had plenty of time to consider them. Then he said that no proposal such as that tabled by the Government today could have been conceived before the events at Charleroi. It was only those events that made us see the need for such a Bill.
So, far from there having been months to consider the proposal, it is only since the proposal arising out of the events at Charleroi was presented to the House a few days ago that there has been any opportunity for anyone to consider the issues on which we are legislating, allowing the House to give the police powers to arrest on suspicion, to detain, and to remove people's civil liberties, even though they have never committed a crime or been tried according to standards of criminal proof.
The Secretary of State went on to note that in his experience, proper consideration was never given to a set of proposals until concrete proposals had been published, which in the case of the Bill was not until last Thursday.


It is only since last Thursday that we have had an opportunity to spark off detailed consideration of the truly offensive nature of the proposals before the House.
As an example of how bad the legislation is, the central issue is whether we should remove people's right to travel and their passport only if they have been convicted in a court of law, or should we remove those rights on some lesser basis, if they have never been convicted of any crime?
That is the central issue, yet a few moments ago the Minister could not even tell us why, in the clause in which the courts are invited to consider relevant evidence as to whether someone has behaved in a way that means that he should not be allowed to have a passport and travel abroad to a foreign football match, the courts are invited to consider any decision of a court or tribunal outside the UK, but they are not invited to consider the decision—that is, the convictions—of a court within the UK.
The Home Secretary could not tell us why. He will write to me—very nice. After the Bill has been passed, we will know something about the central matter that we have debated for a few brief hours and on which the liberties of British citizens are to be taken away. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill did not need to tell the courts that they could take into account the decisions of British courts—they could take that for granted. However, the very next item on the list of factors that courts can take into account is
any decision of a public authority, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
The courts can take into account decisions by public bodies that do not result in the conviction of a citizen, but we are not invited to take into account the convictions of courts.
That is how bad the legislation is. Ministers do not even know and cannot explain to us what it means. They could not explain in the final part of the Report stage whether the courts would have to be convinced of a standard of criminal proof, or merely of civil proof, whether a person had committed an offence of violence and disorder, or done something equivalent to an offence of violence and disorder. My right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General thought—he was being helpful to the Government—that the Bill probably required a criminal standard of proof, but others, including the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal party, thought that only a civil standard of proof was required. That was what the Home Secretary himself had been suggesting up till now.
On the Bill's central issue, we do not know the standard of proof that will be required of the courts. Even now, the Minister cannot tell us that. In their heart of hearts, Labour Members believe at least as passionately as I do in the rights of the individual citizen, and they were elected on a manifesto to uphold the liberties of their constituents. Yet they will go blindly into the Lobby to vote for a Bill that will enable the police to arrest on suspicion someone who might have committed an offence, which may not be a criminal offence, and will not have to be proved to the standard of criminal proof. Are they happy that the Bill will be passed? Are not they relieved that we have a second Chamber, which will—I hope—turf it out or alter it before it returns here and give them a chance to reconsider before their Front-Bench Members get them into real trouble?
The measure will be operational by the autumn. Hon. Members will witness innocent people being caught by the Bill. Some doubt that, and believe that the Bill will not affect too many innocent people. I prefer to proceed on a basis of legislative certainty rather than hope.
The third factor that leads to bad law is legislating on the cry that something must be done, especially about events overseas. The Home Secretary said that the measure could not have been foreseen, and that it was provoked by the events that took place in Charleroi when 965 British citizens were arrested. Only one was charged and convicted. However, the Home Secretary said that they were obviously a bad lot because 40 per cent. had criminal convictions, many of which, as the right hon. Gentleman helpfully showed the House, were for violence and disorder offences. Many of them are, therefore, bad lots.
The essence of our debate is deciding whether we should, as is right and proper, deprive people who have committed an offence and been convicted in a court of violence and disorder, of the right to travel to football matches and remove their passports, or whether we should extend the power to cover people who have never been convicted of an offence. If we are considering stopping only the 40 per cent. of the 965 people from travelling abroad, we do not need extra powers such as the fourth power for which the Bill provides. We could do everything on the basis of those who had been convicted. As the Home Secretary said, a large minority had been convicted.
The Bill invites us to go far beyond considering whether people have convictions from United Kingdom courts and to consider whether they have been arrested and expelled from countries such as Belgium, and whether they are part of the 60 per cent. who had no convictions. The Bill provides for the courts to take into account the fact that people have been arrested and expelled from abroad even though they have never been charged with or convicted of any offence abroad or at home. Under the Bill, those people can be deprived of their passports.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) assured me, during a friendly debate that we had on television at midnight, that the Home Secretary had assured him about the innocent ones at Charleroi—among whom he nearly found himself because he was there, but, happily, was not in the square and was not rounded up. The hon. Gentleman is patently innocent—a vegetarian, teetotal Scot—who is therefore incapable of wrongdoing. However, if he had been in the square, he might have been caught up, arrested and expelled. He assured me that the Home Secretary assured him that the names of people who were expelled but had no convictions against them would not be made available to the courts.
I ask the Minister, who is covering his eyes to help him better to concentrate on my words, to say whether the rest of the House can have a similar assurance that the details of those who were expelled from Charleroi despite having no convictions against them in English courts—indeed, they had no convictions against them in Belgian courts, nor were any charges made under Belgian law—will not be given to the courts should a policeman stop them, detain them, take them to a magistrate and seek to prove that they are the sort of people who might get involved in trouble abroad. I hope that he will make that clear; he had better do so if the debate is to be meaningful.
The fourth aspect that gives rise to bad legislation is collusion between Front Benchers, which is often used to curtail debate. The Minister himself said that he had curtailed the debate only because he saw opposition coming from the Conservative Back Benches. Had Conservative Front Benchers been able to prevent that opposition, he would have allowed full debate. Ministers subscribe to the wonderful doctrine that there will be full debate on a Bill only if there is no opposition to it or if those on the two Front Benches have conspired to curtail or prevent opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] If the Labour Members who have taken no part in these brief proceedings and who want to curtail the rights of their constituents would care to tell me their constituencies, I shall read them into the record so that their constituents will know how lightly and trivially they take citizens' rights. [Interruption.] The more they go on, the longer I shall go on pointing out what is wrong with the measure—until 5 o'clock if need be, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as long as that is in order. This serious matter deserves serious consideration, but otherwise I do not intend to prolong the debate unnecessarily.
The fifth aspect that gives rise to bad legislation is a sanctimonious orgy of vilification of a currently unpopular minority. Hooligans, thugs, racists and drunks are unpopular, and rightly so. We are all happy to see legislation introduced that bears exclusively on those who commit crimes so that they can be brought to court and properly and duly convicted. What worries Conservative Members is that innocent football fans are likely to be caught up by these measures. Some will be suspected by a constable because of their demeanour or behaviour in front of him, which is what the original draft of the Bill said. They will be taken to court and deprived their liberty on a standard of proof less than that required to convict them of any crime, even though they may have done something that may not be a crime according to the Bill.
We know why the Government are happy to risk a lot of perfectly innocent young working class white males getting caught up with the thugs, whom we would all like to be caught by the law. That is part of the new Labour strategy. The Government can take the working class for granted, but they have to pander to middle class susceptibilities. The Prime Minister's memo made it clear that he wanted dramatic measures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he must talk about the content of the Bill. He must not go into matters relating—

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should remain in his seat when I am standing. He cannot go into what happened in Downing street today or the other day. That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Lilley: Obviously I abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to explain why this is such a bad Bill and its origins in the memo leaked to the newspapers today. The memo called for precisely

such a Bill and said that tough measures were needed to deal not with a real problem, but with the Labour party being perceived as weak on crime and crime that affects the middle classes. However, I shall not elaborate for fear of incurring your displeasure.
The final aspect of bad legislation—a Government's lack of firm commitment to any principles—prevailed in this example. The Government have made a principle of not having principles, and have admitted that this measure will curtail the rights of innocent as well as guilty people. It will affect the innocent, and it will abrogate the normal assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It requires a lower level of proof than that normally required. It is retrospective in some respects, and has an element of double jeopardy. It may infringe the human rights convention. It possibly curtails the rights of free movement under European law.
At no point was the principle brought to bear that says beyond this no sensible Government ought to go, because alas the Government put spin above substance. They put the desire for a soundbite and for a measure that bites above real measures that properly target only the guilty and protect the rights of the innocent. I for one shall not support the Bill.

Dr. Lynne Jones: People across the length and breadth of the country who have campaigned for the past three years for the introduction of worthy legislation will be amazed that the Government have been prepared to rush this Bill through the House simply because an international football match is being held in September, and a friendly game at that.
Hon. Members arrived at the House today not having seen the amendments that were to be debated during our consideration of the Bill. A guillotine was imposed between the Committee stage and Report. Such a procedure is unacceptable, and I am surprised that the Government were prepared to abuse the procedures of the House in that way. I have no problems with the use of the guillotine, but to use it to ensure that there is no opportunity for the House to take stock of the debate in Committee before moving on to Report is unbelievable.
I support many of the provisions in the Bill. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that the most important part of the Bill is the fourth pillar—the ability for police officers to detain people at ports simply because they have suspicions that they may have participated in violence or disorder. When I queried that, I had no answer to my question about the grounds on which a police officer may have such suspicions. As it has been ruled out that those grounds could relate to the appearance, clothing or demeanour of the individual, one has to assume that they must relate to some intelligence or information about the past behaviour of the individual concerned. If that information is available, why could not other powers that are provided in the Bill be used to take that individual through the courts and to ban him from participating in overseas football matches? I disagree entirely with my hon. Friend. I believe that measures in the Bill could ensure that if there is appropriate evidence or information that people would be likely to cause violence, their cases could be taken to the courts.
I cannot support the Bill as it stands. I hope that amendments in the other place will mean that when it comes back to this House it is in a much better state than when it leaves.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I cannot help feeling that some of his frustration is explained by the fact that he may hope to travel to France this summer, as I understand that he has a house there.
I wish to refer to the summary measures and the fact that the Bill does not apply to non-UK residents living in the UK. There are approximately 2.5 million non-British residents living in the UK, many of whom are passionate football supporters. I am not alleging that there is a disproportionate criminal element among them, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to keep the issue under review, as this is a potential loophole.

Mr. Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) who makes the case for a UK Parliament—a Parliament in which we can discuss all at once football hooliganism as it affects Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Bill is confined to England and Wales. Despite that, it will be voted upon by right hon. and hon. Members from all four parts of the UK. That must cause concern.
I cannot support the Bill, for the same reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and because of some of the arguments from Labour Members. One of the advantages of voting on the Bill is that I have had the opportunity of speaking to people such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
The Bill combines the worst elements of gesture politics and rushed emergency legislation. That was encapsulated by the Minister's earlier remark that the Government were determined to do all in their power to stamp out football hooliganism. If that is how he feels, why does he not say exactly the same thing about stamping out the truly terrifying increase in violent crime in London, as announced today by the Government? If he had the same approach to violent crime as he says he has to football hooliganism, we might have expected a knee-jerk reaction and instant legislation to reintroduce the sus laws, to change the advice on Macpherson and so on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In a Third Reading debate, hon. Members must speak about the Bill and not other matters.

Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The reason why the Government are concentrating on this Bill is because they think it is a soft target and a diversionary tactic that enables them to avoid the much more serious issues. My constituents will think that the Bill demonstrates the Government's failure to grasp the real priorities. My constituents are interested in dealing with hooliganism, but they are much more concerned about hooliganism at home than abroad. They want to

make sure that the anti-social behaviour orders brought in by the Government can be implemented. I am told that it costs £20,000 per order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying again. Even though we are into the early hours of the morning, I am still sharp enough to notice that.

Mr. Chope: I am addressing my remarks to the issues of the priorities of the Government as encapsulated in the Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Let the Deputy Speaker deal with the matter. This is a Third Reading debate. I am bound by the rules of the House. The hon. Gentleman must not talk about anything other than the Bill. He will have another opportunity at some other time to speak about these matters.

Mr. Chope: I am against the Bill because it introduces infringements of liberty that are not justified by the mischief that the Government have described. They said that the mischief involves about 900 people who were arrested on the continent during the recent international football season. That represents fewer than two people per constituency. The Bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and a total overreaction by the Government, who have wasted valuable parliamentary time that could have been better used to deal with other priorities affecting people and their liberties.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister must respond to some important questions as the Bill proceeds to another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) drew attention to some of the continuing issues relating to national boundaries and nationality. The Minister and the Home Secretary have been pretty co-operative in responding to and accepting amendments. I hope that the Minister recognises that there are still substantial concerns among both Opposition and Government Members. Those concerns will be reinforced in the debates in another place.
In particular, I hope that the Minister will confirm that he continues to keep under review what we may call the national borders loophole—the fact that, even if all the powers become law in more or less their current form, it will still be possible for people to go to Scotland or Northern Ireland in order to try to evade what the Government suggest will be a tough new law.
We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the idea of sunset clauses. It was suggested earlier that there should be a shorter period before the legislation is reviewed, and we were grateful that the Home Secretary and the Minister agreed to keep under review the period after which it will be further considered.
The Minister said that the Government's report on the legislation would deal with the costs, but I think that he will concede that the costs set out in the explanatory notes will already have increased as a result of amendments that the Government have tabled or accepted. Will further explanatory notes be provided before the Bill goes to another place, updating the estimate of what the costs will be?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the guillotine was entirely inappropriate and unjustified. Because of it, some matters were either never discussed or not voted on. Amendment No. 1 on Report was not selected for debate and, more significantly, we debated amendment No. 10 in Committee but were not able to vote on it. With the benefit of hindsight, the Minister may recognise that the Government were very unwise indeed to impose a guillotine.
To correct a misunderstanding that cropped up on Third Reading, it was the Government's original intention to try to curtail debate at 10 pm, and it was only because they accepted an Opposition amendment to the guillotine motion that we were able to continue until midnight in Committee and could have gone to 5 am to complete Report and Third Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was right to say that the proceedings today have been something of a farce. The Government suggest that, through the Modernisation Committee, they will introduce changes to the procedure that will mean that all debate must end at 10 pm every night. However, they also said that they needed to rush this Bill through, and that meant that the House sat into the night last Thursday and tonight. That is indecent haste.
Finally, I shall deal with some points raised by other speakers. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised his fervent concerns and said that the Government were providing only crude choices. That will be a grave worry for the House of Lords.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he was worried that this would not be the final Bill on this matter. He may be right, and the House of Lords will have concerns about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke of the valuable work in his private Member's Bill, but he also mentioned the importance of protecting the law-abiding football fan. I am sure that he is right.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) misunderstood the fact that it was the Opposition who tabled the amendment to the original timetable motion and who therefore gave us a few more hours for debate. However, his contribution reinforced the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald that there is opposition to the Bill among Labour Members. That was also made clear by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). The hon. Member for Islington, North made it clear that he considered that the Government were introducing the sus laws, or even "sus plus".
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) pointed out that the background to the Bill lies in the Prime Minister's memo. He also drew attention to some of the issues that the Government have not yet resolved, and which no doubt will be raised again in another place. He also pointed out the dangers to innocent football fans of bad legislation.

The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) referred to the important position of non-British citizens resident in the UK, and he asked the Minister to deal with that point, which has not yet been addressed. It is clear that problems remain.
The Opposition made it clear that we would not stand in the way of a Bill that dealt properly with the issues relating to football hooliganism. We have kept that promise, and we have even managed to bring the debate to a conclusion a fraction earlier than the Government's revised and amended timetable motion set out. However, substantial concerns remain. Even before we saw the first draft Bill or its revision, we said that the measure had to receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. I have no doubt that that scrutiny will continue in another place.
We shall not stand in the way of the Bill proceeding to another place, but we think that a great deal of work remains to be done.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Almost all the issues raised in this Third Reading debate were dealt with earlier, so I shall not speak to them in detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) asked about UK citizens. We considered extending the Bill to citizens of all countries, but the complications involved persuaded us to go for the simplest option.
I think that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) acknowledged that amendment No. 10 was not drafted perfectly, for reasons of which I have no criticism. However, she will also accept that we stated that we would try to take into account in later amendments the principles that she established in amendment No. 10.
The review process has been set out clearly. I do not accept the contention that there will necessarily be an increase in costs as a result of the amendments that we have accepted, but I shall monitor the matter carefully.
Questions were raised about the guillotine. I am advised that the Government's original proposal was for a seven-hour debate, which would have ended after 10 pm. However, we were happy to accept the Opposition amendment on that matter.
Points have been raised about the procedure, but I can tell Liberal Democrat Members that the House of Commons is the primary Chamber in our parliamentary system. They should accept that the law of the land is made in this House, and not take a provisional view, based on amendments that may be passed in another place.
It is not surprising, given the speeches of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the official policy of the Conservative party has been to abstain on the Bill. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a number of times that the Conservatives would not stand in the way of the Bill. In the words of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservative party would give the Bill
our full support and co-operation in Parliament …
Full support and co-operation is different from not standing in the way. The official Opposition are abstaining on the matter because they have no unity within their party, and a


decision to vote for the Bill, as the right hon. Lady would have wished, would, not have commanded the support of Conservative Members.

Question put, that the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divides: Ayes 171, Noes 42

Division No. 274]
[2.45 am


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Gibson, Dr Ian


Alexander, Douglas
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Allen, Graham
Godsiff, Roger


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Goggins, Paul


Banks, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Battle, John
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Beard, Nigel
Grogan, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Hain, Peter


Best, Harold
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Blackman, Liz
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Blizzard, Bob
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Healey, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hepburn, Stephen


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Heppell, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hesford, Stephen


Browne, Desmond
Hoey, Kate


Buck, Ms Karen
Home Robertson, John


Burden, Richard
Hope, Phil


Burgon, Colin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Burns, Simon
Hoyle, Lindsay


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Humble, Mrs Joan


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hurst, Alan


Cann, Jamie
Hutton, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jamieson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Clelland, David
Kemp, Fraser


Coaker, Vernon
Kidney, David


Cohen, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Colman, Tony
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Connarty, Michael
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Corston, Jean
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Lammy, David


Cox, Tom
Lepper, David


Cranston, Ross
Levitt, Tom


Crausby, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Love, Andrew


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
McAvoy, Thomas


Darvill, Keith
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Davidson, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McNulty, Tony


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
MacShane, Denis



Mactaggart, Fiona


Dawson, Hilton
McWalter, Tony


Dismore, Andrew
McWilliam, John


Dowd, Jim
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Drew, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Martlew, Eric


Edwards, Huw
Meale, Alan


Efford, Clive
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Miller, Andrew


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Moran, Ms Margaret


Flint, Caroline
Mountford, Kali


Follett, Barbara
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Naysmith, Dr Doug





Olner, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin



Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Truswell, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Clive Betts.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baker, Norman
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt HonA J
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
McDonnell, John


Brake, Tom
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Chope, Christopher
Stunell, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cotter, Brian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Fearn, Ronnie
Tyler, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Gidley, Sandra



Hancock, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Harvey, Nick
Sir Robert Smith and


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Donald Gorrie.

Question accordingly agreed to. Bill

read the Third time, and passed.

DATA PROTECTION

Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Commissioner shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall]

School SSAs (Cornwall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is some time since I took part in an Adjournment debate at such a late hour. I had hoped that late sittings had been abandoned, but, during the past few weeks, they seem to have made a remarkable return. They are no better for their brief absence. I am sure that all of us who took part in tonight's proceedings would prefer that they had been handled differently—even those hon. Members who caused them to be so.
To make rushed changes in response to immediate circumstances is likely to result in bad legislation. It was for that reason that I voted against the measure in our earlier proceedings. However, the exact opposite applies to the subject of this debate: no movement at all has resulted in a bad situation and I hope that we can change it.
The problem is due to the distribution formula and it affects most rural counties—not only in education, but in policing, local government and health. However, it strikes especially at education. The formula was developed by the Conservatives in the 1980s and has never been substantially changed. Year after year, it has delivered a lower spend per pupil in schools in areas such as Cornwall than in other parts of the country. It discriminates against children in rural schools.
In counties such as Cornwall, a primary school of about 100 pupils receives about £10, 000 less each year than the English average. A secondary school of about 500 pupils receives about £50, 000 less. That was Labour's inheritance when they came to office. People in my county expected that the formula would be changed under Labour, but that has not yet occurred. As a result, our county and similar counties fall further behind every year, despite the fact that they face higher costs in delivering education.
Those counties have to bear the costs of supporting and providing for small rural schools and the costs of rural transport. Cornwall county council's transport budget was overspent by £1.2 million last year. The council and the county's head teachers analysed the shortfall facing Cornwall's schools. Under the present formula, there is a minimum shortfall of about £37 million, compared with the amount that is needed to deliver the basic national curriculum.
In April last year, when I initiated a similar debate on this issue, a rising number of Cornish children were in classes of 31 or more. Numbers had risen in Cornwall, although they had declined in the rest of England.

Mr. Colin Breed: Does my hon. Friend find it perverse that at a time when the Government are providing more funds to build a new classroom at a school, the very same school finds itself without the funds to employ a teacher to go in that classroom?

Mr. Taylor: Not only do I find it perverse, but it makes me angry to see the problems that schools suffer. Schools in my constituency face similar problems and those

problems will get worse as the demographics mean that a declining number of children will go into small schools. That will mean a loss of funds and a loss of teachers.
I am not using the debate as an opportunity to lambast the Government. The disaster was caused by the Conservative funding formula, but the disappointment lies in the problems that have been caused by the lack of early action by this Government. We are more than three years into the Parliament and we still have not seen a solution to a problem that Ministers themselves acknowledge. Indeed, the last time we debated this issue, more than a year ago, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the funding formula was not fair, adding that with a bit of determination and
with a bit of give and take and some realism from Members of all parties representing all geographical areas, we can improve it.—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 874.]
The problem is that there has been no improvement.
Indeed, the standard spending assessments for education for Cornwall mean that spending for primary school pupils has fallen behind the national average by £105 for every pupil and for secondary school pupils by £117. That is substantially worse than the position that the Labour Government inherited. It is an average underfund of £111 for every pupil in Cornwall. That has directly impacted on the quality of service. The number of pupils has risen by 1, 107 since 1997, but the number of teachers has dropped by 13 since then. No wonder there have been increasing class sizes.
The Liberal Democrat team in the county decided to contact every head teacher to allow them to express their views. Those views make worrying reading. The policy to reduce infant class sizes that has been pursued by Labour has meant larger class sizes for older pupils. Head teachers predict rises in both junior and secondary class sizes over the next three years, despite a falling birth rate in the county.
More than two out of three head teachers have had to cut spending on books and classroom equipment since 1997, when Labour was elected. Three out of five made cuts last year and fewer than two out of five feel that they can afford sufficient materials to guarantee the quality of the education that they provide. Two thirds of head teachers say that their schools do not have sufficient funds for building maintenance.
The impact of that is perhaps most disturbing when one considers the response that head teachers gave to questions about how they felt about their own profession. They universally talked about the importance that they attached to teaching and about how they cared about the service that they could give their pupils, but fewer than two in five said that they would recommend teaching as a profession to a member of their family. Fewer than a third said that they would recommend head teaching, and seven out of 10 head teachers are considering early retirement. No wonder that 95 per cent. supported our argument that more resources were needed. Every teacher surveyed endorsed our campaign to secure equality of funding with the rest of England and a fair funding system across the country.

Mr. Andrew George: Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on the fact that in my constituency a survey identified that nearly four out of five schools had experienced cuts in staff since 1997? Despite the welcome


resources made available by the Government, there are clearly pressures on staff. As we have heard today, they have resulted in the fact that 10 per cent. of head teachers have taken leave owing to stress.

Mr. Taylor: The figures are alarming and they are reflected across the county. Four in five schools have cut staff since Labour was elected. More than half have had to reduce teacher non-contact time and more than half say that they are employing younger teachers when vacancies occur as a way of saving funds.
That is the reality behind Labour's claims substantially to have increased spending. First, the county has fallen further behind the average because of a funding formula invented by the Conservatives which Labour has not yet changed. Secondly, although in the earlier debate the Minister for School Standards claimed that the previous comprehensive spending review made £19 billion available for education, Labour has since been forced to acknowledge that its figures were misleading and inflated, as we argued at the time.
One reason why I am so pleased to have secured this debate, despite the late hour, is that the second comprehensive spending review will be announced tomorrow, and it will be time to correct the exaggeration of last time, when the Government did not deliver the money that the Chancellor claimed they would. Teachers have suffered as a result, not least because much of that money was taken up not only by inflation and double and triple counting, but by non-funded salary increases for teachers, which the schools have found to be a burden in distributing resources and which have forced them to lose staff.
Lack of resources has meant that over two thirds of head teachers have had to cut spending on classroom equipment; over 60 per cent. have had to make cuts in equipment; and over one third have had to find other forms of fundraising to meet the shortfall. Indeed, 77 per cent. said that they relied on fundraising by parent-teacher associations and others not only for extracurricular activities, but for books, equipment, computers and educational trips. Reliance on fundraising for basic essentials has increased in 53 per cent. of schools.
The survey is at its most telling when one reads what teachers have to say about that. One said:
We have been forced into having class sizes under 30 in infant classes. This is a simplistic argument and does not show any understanding of current education policy coming out of the standards department.
Another said:
We have mixed age group classes in the juniors due to a lack of space for any additional classrooms.
Another said:
We have to buy a great deal of second hand equipment from schools which have closed, to provide a reasonable level of equipment in most classes.
Another said:
We have no staffroom, no headteacher's office. A toilet block and classroom were funded by the Parents Association because the LEA would not pay.
Another teacher said:
We have been allocated £600 this year for capital expenditure, but what can that provide?

Another said:
We always have 1 or 2 pupils below the threshold for the third teacher to be reinstated … in January, and usually go over the threshold during the summer term.
In other words, the school is a teacher short. Another said:
To make a manageable budget we are making cuts in resources year on year.
Yet another said:
Rising teacher costs means that there is very little left in your budget for resources.
Finally, one teacher said:
We had substantial reserves four years ago and dig deeply into them each year to set the budget. It is unlikely that we will be able to set a reasonable budget after this year.
I know that these problems are inherited from the Conservatives. They created a funding system that discriminated against rural counties such as Cornwall and left our schools underfunded. It played a major part in the general election campaign, when we fought on the argument that the Conservative party was underfunding Cornish schoolchildren by an average of £100 a head. I do not believe that, on the election of the new Government, anybody in the county believed that that would get worse, but it has done, both in the absolute problems of schools having to cut staff, as I have said, and, perhaps worse for our county, in that discrimination against us has widened that gap, even as the Government have sought to put extra funding into education.
The comprehensive spending review to be announced tomorrow provides a double opportunity, first, to release those resources from the war chest that could and should have been spent in the past three years and to release extra spending to schools. All the signs are that that will happen, and if it does, it will be welcome. We will see where the money is spent and criticise where we think it spent wrongly. Secondly, I press the Minister to take the opportunity to sort out this discriminatory, unfair funding system that she has inherited from the Conservative party and which has left Cornwall, Devon and other rural counties so badly served.
It is difficult for Governments to create new funding formulae to redress the balance when it means having to take from some areas to give to others. However, there is an opportunity in the context of extra spending in the comprehensive spending review, which I hope and believe will be realised tomorrow, to redress the effects of the funding system by investing extra money into counties such as Cornwall without snatching it off others. We are talking not about cuts but about a fair funding formula for those who so richly deserve it—those who work in our schools and deliver good results but do so with big classes and under-resourcing, having to rely on parents in the poorest county in the country to provide essentials.
Schools are left thousands of pounds a year worse off because of a funding formula that Labour has so far failed to change. There is an opportunity to redress that; I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance that that opportunity will be taken before we have to fight another general election. If the formula has not been changed by then, people will ask, "What was the point of a Labour Government when they could not deliver?" I do not believe that the Minister wants to have to answer that question from angry Cornish parents. The Conservative


party has nothing to say on the issue because it was responsible for the formula in the first place. Ministers must take action if they are to justify their position.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Despite the lateness of the hour, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) not only on securing this Adjournment debate on the issue of school funding, which is clearly important to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but on doing so at the start of an important day in the history of this Government's commitment to putting into our schools the resources that we all agree are important.
As a Worcestershire Member of Parliament, I share and have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view of the unfairness of the distribution system. I come from an authority that fares even worse than Cornwall in the standard spending assessment arrangements. Although I will not, therefore, be defending the current funding system, I will be defending the Government's commitment to increasing overall spending in our schools, as well as explaining the effects that that has had on Cornwall and the actions that the Government are taking to improve fairness and transparency in the funding of schools.
The first thing that I must reiterate is that the Government have delivered an overall increase, allowing for an extra £2.1 billion to be spent on education in 2000–01 and an education SSA increase of 5.4 per cent. across the country. On top of that, an extra £500 million has been made available for the standards fund, £50 million for support of school budgets and £14 million for excellence in cities authorities. There is £19 million extra spending headroom through the deferral of an increase in pension contributions and an extra £290 million was announced in the Budget.
Notwithstanding the way in which that is distributed across the country, that is a substantial real-terms increase in funding—equivalent to an increase per pupil in real terms of £180 this year, and of £300 since 1997. Under the previous Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. Our increases are significantly more than could have been delivered from putting 1p on income tax.
I have said that it is not my intention to defend the distribution system, but I must point out that the Government's overall funding increase has significantly benefited Cornwall. Cornwall's education SSA for 2000–01 is £199.6 million—an increase of £9.77 million or 5.32 per cent.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Given the Minister's sympathetic comments about the distribution system, does she acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), that the time to correct a discrepancy is when one is in a position to be more generous? I hope that she will at least give an

assurance that she will make representations to her right hon. Friends in the Cabinet that now is the time to correct the discrepancies.

Jacqui Smith: Later in my speech, I shall outline what the Government intend to do in that respect.
As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell points out, Cornwall's is not the best placed LEA, being 101 out of 150 LEAs in terms of funding per pupil. Nevertheless, the increases that Cornwall has received are substantial—not only in its SSA, but in its standards fund allocation for 2000–01 which, at £20.58 million, represents an increase of 82 per cent. on the 1999–2000 allocation; in its share of the additional £50 million announced in November, which is £483, 000; and in its share of the additional £290 million announced in the Budget, which is more than £2.7 million. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the latter was not allocated according to the SSA formula, so schools throughout the country, and in Cornwall in particular, will receive increases of up to £50, 000 per secondary school and up to £9, 000 per primary school.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned capital expenditure. It may well be that schools in Cornwall feel that that is not yet adequate, and I do not suggest that we have addressed fully our inheritance from the previous Government of crumbling schools. However, this year we have spent three times as much on capital expenditure as was planned by the previous Government; and, in the new deal for schools 4 allocation alone, Cornwall received £5.7 million, which constitutes a significant contribution to improving schools' infrastructure.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Cornwall's teachers, governors and pupils on their excellent results, with the percentage of pupils with five or more A-starred to C GCSE passes standing at 51.6 per cent., which is above the national average of 47.9 per cent. It is clear that the authority has been making good use of the extra resources provided by the Government, and that teachers, governors and pupils have been working hard to improve results.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned class sizes. The Government targeted money on fulfilling our pledge to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year olds. The hon. Gentleman appeared to dismiss that achievement, but the Government believe that it will have a lasting effect on children as they pass through the education system, and we shall make £620 million available to support that pledge. Allocations to Cornwall so far total £3.5 million, which has helped to reduce average key stage 1 class sizes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to 24.9 from 25.4 in January 1997, and in Cornwall as a whole to 25.3 from 26.2 in January 1997. That additional investment in Cornwall has had a direct effect on reducing key stage 1 class sizes.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I did not gloss over the figures for five to seven-year-olds, but I did make the point that overall class sizes have increased, with substantial numbers of pupils in older age groups in classes of more than 31. I am sure that the Minister will concede that,


despite the Government's belief that priority should be given to younger pupils, that is a cause for concern arising from the process.

Jacqui Smith: Overall in the country, the size of the average primary class has fallen, and average class sizes as a whole have fallen. Were secondary head teachers to use the extra money that they received—between £30, 000 and £50, 000—to reduce class sizes, the pupil-teacher ratio could be reduced by 0.4. We have put in place the money to enable our class size pledge to be met, and to ensure that some of the side effects identified by the hon. Gentleman do not occur.
It is important to consider the position with regard to early years. Since 1997–98, the Government have prioritised the provision of places for four-year-olds and five-year-olds. The funding available through the SSA and the nursery education grant has increased nationally by almost £400 million. That has enabled some 120, 000 new, free early education places for three and fouryear-olds to be created nationally across all sectors.
In Cornwall, 5, 216 free four-year-old early education places are to be created during the summer term 2000, of which 3, 697 were funded through Cornwall's under-fives SSA sub-block and 1, 519 from nursery education grant. For three-year-olds, during 1999–2000, £40 million was made available and targeted on helping children in 65 local education authorities chosen on the basis of social need.
In autumn 1999, funding was initially given to the 57 most deprived authorities, using the Government's index of local deprivation, augmented by two additional child-centred measures. We then made available to eight more authorities, including Cornwall, extra funding to create three-year-old places for the spring term. In that way, Cornwall benefited overall from the Government's commitment to providing early years places and from specifically targeted funding that recognised the levels of deprivation in the county.
It is important to recognise that Cornwall has benefited from the Government's policy on education action zones. Although it is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the zone covering Camborne, Pool and Redruth, which was approved by the Secretary of State in November 1999 and allocated a Department for Education and

Employment grant of £500, 000 each year for three years and up to £250, 000 match funding, will be important for the innovative initiative that it is proposing and for the fact that such innovation has knock-on benefits for other schools in the area.
As I stated at the beginning, my hon. Friends and I have not attempted to defend the current system of local authority grant distribution. That is why the Government are undertaking a review. It was not possible to find a way forward as quickly as the hon. Gentleman and probably many other hon. Members would have wanted, but we were honest about that and are now looking for a longer-term way of reviewing that distribution. Because education accounts for about 40 per cent. of local authority revenue expenditure, the future of education funding makes up an important part of the Government's review.
The Government expect to publish a Green Paper later this summer, setting out a range of options for debate. We are seeking arrangements that will be fair between different parts of the country; which will be more transparent; and which will provide greater predictability and stability. They could include methods for improving the distribution of funding from central Government to make it fairer and to address the points that the hon. Gentleman outlined, giving LEAs three-year funding settlements so that they can plan ahead, and giving separate assessments for schools and LEAs, to increase the clarity and certainty of funding.
Our objective is to remove the worst of the disparities that exist in the country. We look to levelling funding up, not down. We will therefore take action to ensure that future distribution of funds is fairer, more rational and more satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine. However, given the announcements—about which we are hopeful—that will be made later today, I ask hon. Members to acknowledge not only the challenge of distributing the money that is made available for education, but the challenge of providing more genuine resources for our schools. I suggest that the Government are already meeting that challenge; they will certainly meet it in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Three o'clock.